Mandan, ND – The demand of a Texas pipeline that accuses Greenpeace of defamation, interruptions and attacks during the protests against Dakota’s access pipe goes to trial in North Dakota on Monday, in one case, the organization of Environmental Defense says that threatens the rights of freedom of expression and its future.
The demand comes from the protests in 2016 and 2017 on the planned crossing of the Missouri river of the Oil Ppeline, upstream of the reserve of the Sioux Sioux of Standing Rock. The tribe has long argued that the pipe threatens its water supply. Of the thousands of people who protested the project, hundreds were arrested.
Energy Transfer and his subsidiary Dakota Access allege transfer, discomfort, defamation and other crimes by Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands and his American branch, Greenpeace USA. The demand also appoints the group’s financing arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc.
The jury trial in the State Court of Mandan, North Dakota, is scheduled to last five weeks.
What are the details of the case?
Energy Transfer, based in Dallas, alleges that Greenpeace tried to delay the construction of the pipe, defamated the companies behind him and coordinated the transfer, vandalism and violence by the protesters of the pipe. Demand seeks millions of dollars in damage.
Dakota’s access pipeline was completed and has been transporting oil since June 2017.
Greenpeace International said that it should not be appointed in demand because it is different from the two Greenpeace entities based in the United States, it operates outside the United States, and its employees were never in North Dakota or involved with the protests.
Greenpeace USA said that the plaintiffs have not supported their claims in the years elapsed since the protests.
In early February, a judge denied Greenpeace’s motions to throw or limit parts of the case.
What is Greenpeace’s position?
The representatives of the environmental organization founded more than 50 years ago said that the company only wants to silence the critics of the oil industry.
“This trial is a critical proof of the future of the first amendment, both freedom of expression and peaceful protest, under the Trump administration and beyond,” the interim executive director of Greenpeace USA, Sushma Raman, told journalists. “A bad decision in this case could put our rights and freedoms in danger for all of us, whether journalists, protesters or any person who wants to participate in the public debate.”
Greenpeace USA helped support “non -violent training and direct action” on security and reduction of protests, said Deep Padmanabha, senior legal advisor, Deep Padmanabha.
Energy transfer argues that “anyone participated in a training in a protest must be responsible for each person’s actions in that protest,” said Padmanabha. “Therefore, it is quite easy to see how, if it succeeds, this type of tactic could have a chilling effect in anyone who may consider participating in a protest.”
In early February, Greenpeace International filed a lawsuit against intimidation in the Amsterdam district court against energy transfer, saying that the company acted erroneously and should pay the costs and damages resulting from its “without merit” litigation.
What does energy transfer say?
A energy transfer spokesman said that demand is that Greenpeace does not follow the law.
“It’s not about freedom of expression, since they are trying to claim. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and legally protest. However, when it is not done according to our laws, we have a legal system to deal with that, ”said Energy Transfer Transferz Transfer Vicki Granado in a statement.
The company presented a similar case in the Federal Court in 2017, which a judge dismissed in 2019. Shortly after, the transfer of energy filed the state lawsuit now aimed at trial.
The energy transfer was launched in 1996 with 20 employees and 200 miles of natural gas pipes. Today, the company of 11,000 employees has and operates more than 125,000 miles of pipes and related facilities.
