Greenpeace is scheduled to go to trial Monday before a North Dakota ju judge goes bankrupt if successful in a bomb case.
Dallas-based company Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in 2017, accusing him of accusing a noisy protest nearly a decade ago over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline near Standing Rocksoo Booking. Activists say the lawsuit is a thinly veiled tactic to curb freedom of speech and set a horrifying precedent for protest groups, with Greenpeace playing a supportive role only in Native American-led demonstrations. I say it.
“This trial is a key test of the future of the First Amendment, both freedom of speech and peaceful protests from the Trump administration and beyond,” Greenpeace interim director Sushma Raman said in official duties Thursday. .
Energy Transfer declined to comment prior to the trial. In a statement in August, he said the lawsuit against Greenpeace was “not related to free speech.” That's about not following the law. ”
Greenpeace said the required damage would reach $300 million. He said this is more than 10 times the group's annual budget. The two related entities are the Washington-based Greenpeace Fund, the Greenpeace Fund, which is awarded to other groups, and the Netherlands-based Greenpeace International.
The trial is expected to last five weeks in the state courthouse in Mandan. Many observers are skeptical that Greenpeace, one of the world's most well-known environmental activist groups, can win a conservative North Dakota ju-search.
Until last year, President Trump's Secretary of the Interior, Doug Burgham, chose to be governor. Kelcy Warren, founder and executive chairman of Energy Transfer LP, is a presidential advocate and a leading donor.
The Dakota Access Pipeline was approved in 2016, spurring protests from Native Americans. The 1,170-mile pipeline carries oil from North Dakota to Illinois.
Thousands of people traveled from across the country to participate in the months-long camp near the reservation, and tribal leaders appealed to stop the pipeline. They used the slogan “Water is Life.” Police and private security have clashed with protesters multiple times, saying the energy transfer has damaged critical equipment and has damaged its funding prospects.
Wanyarock, an activist living in Standing Rock, said the movement has developed organically and is led by women. “We were standing in an unarmed river bank,” she said.
The camp was eventually destroyed and the pipeline is running through final approval.
Energy Transfer's lawsuit was first filed in 2017 against a wider range of federal court defendants and is a corrupt organizational law that was influenced by Racketeer, or law designed to defeat organized crime. He allegedly violated Rico. It was dismissed by North Dakota U.S. District Court Judge Billy Roy Wilson.
A similar complaint was then filed in state court. The latest version of the lawsuit denies the defendant trespassing, honour and misleading business intervention. Greenpeace says it spread misinformation that sparked protests and seriously hurt its ability to run its business.
Greenpeace's lawyer Deepa Padmanaba said the group was in support of the protest and involved in training people with non-violent direct actions, but not at the heart of the effort. She said allegations, particularly including trespassing, sought to impose “collective protest liability.”
She provided examples of non-violent protesters being determined to be responsible for the actions of “unknown people who set fire to construction equipment, for example.” She added, “If successful, it's very easy to see how this type of tactic can have a serious, calm impact on those considering taking part in the protest.”
Greenpeace considers this action as a slap or a strategic litigation against public participation. This is a term used to refer to cases aimed at silence critics or sacrificeing the time and money to defend the case. Although not North Dakota, some American states have laws that easily dismiss lawsuits that have been shown to be SLAPP cases. In the European Union, new directives also provide some protection from groups within the borders.
Citing the EU directive and other Dutch laws, Greenpeace International filed this month a countersuit against energy transfers in Amsterdam, seeking to recover costs incurred during the lawsuit. Greenpeace International adviser Christine Casper said the first hearing in the lawsuit will take place in July.
