The jury in Northern Dakota ordered 660 million dollars In damage to the transfer of energy, the company is behind Dakota arrives pipeline. Transmission Lay a lawsuit against Greenpeace in 2019On the pretext that he had organized a wide conspiracy against the company by organizing historical protests against the Standing Rock Sioux in 2016 and 2017.
In a lawsuit, energy transfer partners accused three green peace entities-two in the United States and the other based in Amsterdam-Bannas violating the laws of infringement on the property of others and defamation in Northern Dakota, and coordinating the protests aimed at stopping the 1172 miles pipeline from the transportation of Bakin oil in North Dakota to two parties in ILENDONE. Greenpeace has maintained that it played a simple support for the indigenous movement.
“This is clear that this is a test issue aimed at intimidating others from the first amendment rights to freedom of expression and peaceful protest,” said Deepa Badmanaab, the great legal advisor to Greenpeace USA. “They are trying to buy silence; this silence is not for sale.”
Legal and indigenous legal experts said that the lawsuit was an example of a “school book” on “the strategic lawsuit against public participation”, known as colloquial as SLAPP, a tactic used by wealthy companies and individuals to dump them in legal fees. They also criticized the transfer of energy to use the lawsuit to undermine the rights of the tribal treaties by exaggerating the role of instigators outside the state.
Greenpeace Inc. , U.S. call arm, based in the United States; Green peace boxes, which collect funds and also based on the United States; Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands – is planning their following moves, including an appeal to the Supreme Court in Northern Dakota and a separate stable flaming in the European Union.
As part of a previous appeal for the transfer of the trial, Greenpeace A. 33 pages To the state’s Supreme Court, she made it clear that jurors in Morton Province, Northern Dakota-where the trial-is likely to be biased against the defendants, as they were extracted from the same area where the anti-midfield protests and the disruption of daily life occurred.
The request included results from a survey that included 150 potential jurors in Morton Province conducted by the National jury project, a litigation consulting company, which found that 97 percent of the population said they could not be a fair or neutral juror. Greenpeace also pointed out that nine out of 20 final jury are either a “direct personal experience” with protests, or a friend or family member with direct personal experience.
Stephanie Keith / Greenpis
Bat Peronto, a honorary professor in the Vermont Law and the College of Graduate Studies, said that the chances of the Supreme Court in Northern Dakota will overturn the minimum court ruling “most likely less than 50 percent.” He said that what might be probably is that the Supreme Court will reduce the “outrageous” amount of money that a jury receives in Morton Province, which includes many penalties that doubled the amount of $ 300 million of the damage that was originally claimed.
“The court has a lot of discretionary authority to reduce the amount of damage,” he said. “Beyond punishment, this is the burned land, what we see here.”
Depending on what is happening in the North Dakotta Supreme Court, Parenteau also said that there is a basis for the appeal of the case to the US Supreme Court, based on cases of the first amendment to the freedom of the relevant expression. But he added that this step may be a “really dangerous suggestion”, as it could put the issue of this conservative issue. The federal decision in favor of energy transport can limit any organizations to protest at the country level – not only against pipelines.
Amsterdam -based Greenpeace International, which coordinates 24 independent semesters in green peace all over the world, is legally separate from them. It has passed on the energy partners in the Netherlands in February, and it benefited from a new directive to combat SLAPP in the European Union I entered into force in May 2024.
Greenpeace International is only on a hook for a small part of more than 600 million dollars charged with the three green peace bodies by the Morton jury. The reflection in the European Union will not change what happened in the American courts. Instead, it seeks to recover the costs incurred by the branch, which is based in Amsterdam, during his battles for years against the Morton boycott lawsuit and a previous federal case in 2017 Ultimately refused.
The Greenpeace International in the Dutch courts will start in July, the first European Union anti -EU directive. According to Christine Casper, General Adviser to Greenpeace International, the European Union branch has a strong issue because the only measure I took to support anti-antibody protests is to sign an open letter-what you described as a clear condition for protected public participation. Eric Heinz, an expert on freedom of expression and a professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University in London, said the issue is “black and white”.
He said: “Usually I do not like prediction, but if you have to put money on this, I will bet on winning over Greenpece.”
While the various Greenpeace entities may have to pay compensation on request by the American courts, the result of the case in the European Union, Casper said that victory will send an international message against “bullying in companies and weapons of law.” Badmanab said that regardless of the damage incurred by Greenpece USA, the organization will not disappear any time soon. She said, “You cannot bankrupt the movement.” “What we are working on, our campaigns and our obligations – will not change.”
In response to the comment request, energy transfer said that the jury’s decision in Morton Province was a victory for the Mandan people and “for all Americans who commit to the law who understand the difference between the right to freedom of expression and break the law. Green peace has been held responsible for all of us.”
“The case was more than just punishing the greenery – it was an agent of water protection in the permanent rock movement. He said he showed what could happen “if you exceeded the path of what they consider an acceptable form of protest.”
He said: “They had to avoid the actual context of the entire movement, on the rights of the treaty, land rights, water rights and tribal sovereignty because they could not win this battle.” “They had to go to a circular road, and to find a sympathetic court to attack the environmental movement.”
Janet Alakir, head of the Stand Rock Seo tribe, said in A. March 3 statement The Morton boycott case was “allegedly defaming and seeking financial damage, designed to close all the sounds that support permanent rocks.” She said that the company also used advertising to discredit the tribe during and after the protests.
“Part of the attack on our tribe is to attack our allies,” Alcir wrote. “The rock rock tribe will not be silent.”
This story has been updated.
adxpro.online