On Wednesday, the North Dakota ju umpire awarded damages totaling more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, a Texas-based pipeline company.
The verdict was a major blow to environmental organizations. Greenpeace had said the alleged damages in the $300 million range of energy transfer would be sufficient to close the group in the US. Wednesday's ju judge awarded more than that.
Greenpeace said it would sue. The group claims they only play minor roles in demonstrations led by the Standing Rock Sioux. It portrays the lawsuit as an attempt to curb critics of the oil industry.
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.
It took me about 30 minutes to read a long list of questions raised to the ju judges, including whether Greenpeace had committed violations, honour damages, conspiracy, and whether he had discovered that he had awarded the amount awarded for each crime.
Later, outside the courts of Mandan, both sides invoked the right to free speech, but in very different ways.
Deepa Padmanava, senior legal counsel at Greenpeace USA, said:
Just a moment ago, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher's Trey Cox, the lead energy transfer lawyer, called the verdict a “strong affirmation” of the first amendment. “Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,” he said. “But violent and destructive protests are illegal and unacceptable.”
Earlier in the week, during Monday's closing debate, President Trump's ally and provider, Kelsey Warren, co-founder and chairman of the Energy Transfer, had the plaintiff's final words when he played a record of comments his lawyer 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 when we fought 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 Rocksou bookings and argued that the pipeline could sweep through sacred land and put local water supplies at risk. The Standing Rocksou tribes were sued to stop the project, and other tribes, environmentalists and celebrities were among the many people gathered in rural areas, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who are now members of Trump's Cabinet, and two members of Tarshigabad.
However, protests erupted in acts of vandalism and violence, alienating people from the surrounding communities in the Bismarck Manda area.
Greenpeace has long argued that lawsuits are a threat to First Amendment rights, and have a dangerous impact on organizations that speak about a wide range of issues and a dangerous impact on organizations that speak about a wide range of issues. Greenpeace calls the case a strategic litigation against public participation or slap litigation, the terminology of cases intended to interfere with freedom of speech by increasing the risk of expensive legal combat. Many states have laws that are not North Dakota, but make it difficult to pursue such cases.
Cox was caught up in Greenpeace during discussions on Monday's closing session. 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 laid out 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 open since 2017, but is awaiting final permission for a small section that crosses 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.
Three Greenpeace entities were named in the lawsuit: Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, 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, raising money and award 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.
On Wednesday, the ju judges found Greenpeace Inc. was responsible for most of the damage awarded, reaching more than $660 million, according to representatives of both Greenpeace and Energy Transfer. The damages cover dozens of numbers read out in each defendant's court for each claim.
Separately, this year's Greenpeace International has refuted energy transfer in the Netherlands and summoned a new European Union directive against slapsuits and Dutch law.
During the discussion of Monday's closing session in North Dakota, Greenpeace's lead lawyer, Everett Jack Jr., was the study in contrast to Cox. Both men wore dark suits and red ties to have a final argument before the Juju umpire. 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 called the Court Oversight Committee, who criticized the court for rejecting Greenpeace's petition in a large city in Fargo that was not affected by the protests. 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.
After the verdict, Galvas called it “the worst first amendment decision I've ever seen,” expressing concern that appeals reached the Supreme Court could overturn decades of precedents regarding the protection of free things.
The group also had problems with the number of ju umpires with ties to the oil industry and the number of ju umpires who expressed negative views of the protest during the selection of ju umpires. However, Suja A. Thomas, a law professor at the University of Illinois and a ju umpire expert, said that the North Dakota court precedent is not to use “ju umpire blanket disqualification” whether based on experience or opinion, “only because there may be some interest in disqualification of the ju umpire blanket.”
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 indigenously led legal and advocacy nonprofit group that grew from the Standing Rock protests. Segovia, who is also a member of the Court Watch Group, 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 said she saw her playing bigger dynamics. “At the heart of that, it's a proxy war against indigenous sovereignty using international environmental organizations,” she said.
