Greenpeace USA for defense of their actions during the Protest on Dakota Access pipeline at a civil trial
The Texas Pipeline Company, which accuses Greenpeace for defamation, disorders and attacks during the protest against pipelines for access to Dakota, goes to the trial in northern Dakota on Monday, if the organization of the environmental advocacy of environmental protection says that they are threatening free speeches and its future.
The lawsuit stems from the protests in 2016 and 2017 due to the planned crossing of the Missouri River, upstream of the Standing rock Sioux tribe. The tribe has long claimed that the pipeline threatens their supply of water. Of the thousands of people who protested against the project, hundreds were arrested.
Energy transfer and his Dakota Access branch cite offense, nuisance, defamation and other criminal offenses of the Netherlands Greenpeace International and his American branch, Greenpeace USA. The US $ 300 million complaint also appoints a Greenpeace Fund Inc. Financing Group.
The jury trial at the Mandana State Court, ND, should last five weeks.
What are the details of the case?
Transfes Energy with headquarters in Dallas states that Greenpeace tried to delay the construction of the pipeline, slandered the company behind it and coordinated the transgression, vandalism and violence by the protesters of the pipeline. The lawsuit seeks millions of dollars of damage.
Dakota access pipeline has been completed and transported oil since June 2017.
Threats of US tariffs encourage an incentive for a re -examination of pipeline projects to increase the economic confidence of Canada. Samson CBC himself looks at a variable dialogue and what stands in the way.
Greenpeace International said that it should not be appointed in a lawsuit because it is different from two US-based US-based entities, operating outside the US, and its employees were never in northern Dakota or were involved in protests.
Greenpeace USA said that prosecutors failed to support their claims in the years since the protest.
Earlier in February, the judge denied Greenpeace’s proposals to throw out or limit parts of the case.
What is the position of Greenpeace?
“If we lose, Greenpeace USA could face financial downfall, ending more than 50 years of environmental activism,” Group states.
Representatives of the Environmental Protection Organization claim that energy transmission just wants to silence the critics of the oil industry.
“This is the trial of a critical test of the future of the first amendment, and freedom of speech and peaceful protest, under [Donald] Trump’s administration and beyond, “Temporary CEO Greenpeace USA Sushma Raman told reporters.” A bad verdict in this case could bring our rights and freedoms in danger to all of us, whether we are journalists, protesters or everyone who wants to get to the public in public. “
Greenpeace USA helped support “non -violent, direct training” on safety and deescation at protests, said senior legal advisor Deep Padmanabha.
Energy transfer claims that “anyone who deals with training for a protest should be responsible for the actions of each person in that protest,” said Padmanabha. “So it is quite easy to see that if it is successful, this tactic could have a serious chilling effect on anyone who could consider participating in the protest.”
Earlier in February, Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against ITIMIDATION at the Amsterdam District Court against the transfer of energy, saying that the company had acted wrong and had to pay costs and damage due to litigation. In 2024, the European Union brought rules that were aimed at assistance to journalists, activists for rights and public guards to defend against lawsuits intended for harassment or silence, including their relationships in expensive litigation.
The trade war for beer between Canada and the United States, due to the tariff, has encouraged a new interest in abandoned pipeline projects such as Energy East, which would be delivered to Ontario and Quebec, and Northern Gateway, who would run to the northern coast of British Columbia. The new survey of the Angus Reid Institute shows public support for the idea, and politicians have considered the revival of projects, but one expert says that pipeline companies may not be so worried about the idea.
What does energy transfer?
A spokesman for energy transmission said that the lawsuit refers to Greenpeace not followed by the law.
“It is not a free speech that they are trying to ask. We support all Americans’ rights to express their opinions and the lawful protest is, said a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer Vicki Granado.
The company filed a similar case in the Federal Court of 2017, which the judge rejected in 2019. Shortly thereafter, Energy transfer filed a lawsuit of the State Court now to the trial.
Energy transfer was launched in 1996 with 20 employees and 320 kilometers of natural gas pipelines. Today, a company of 11,000 employees own and manage over 200,000 kilometers of pipelines and related facilities.
