Mandan, ND (AP) – A Texas Pipeline Company’s Lawsuit Accusing Greenpeace of Defamation, Disruptions and Attacks During Protests Against The Dakota Access PaLine, Enev in North Dakota Advocacy Organization Says Threatens Free Speech Rights and Its Many Future.
The lawsuit stems from the protests in 2016 and 2017 over the planned crossing of the Missouri River of the Oil Pipeline, upstream from the reservation of the tribe of the standing rock Sioux. The tribe has long claimed that the pipeline threatened its water supply. From the thousands of people who protested against the project, hundreds were arrested.
The energy transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access claim to be breaking, disadvantage, slander and other crimes from the Netherlands -based Greenpeace International and its US branch, Greenpeace USA. The trial also names the group’s funding, Greenpeace Fund Inc.
Trusted news and daily temptations, right in your inbox
See Sami-Youodel is the source of Daily News, Entertainment and Feel Food.
The trial of the State Court of Mandan, North Dakota, is scheduled to last five weeks.
What are the details about the case?
Dallas -based transfer claims that Greenpeace has tried to slow down the construction of the pipeline, slander companies behind it and coordinates the violation, vandalism and violence by protesters of the pipeline. The lawsuit seeks to damage millions of dollars.
Dakota access pipeline has been completed and transported oil since June 2017.
Greenpeace International has said it should not be indicated in the trial, as it is different from the two US -based organizations operates outside the US and its employees have never been in North Dakota or have participated in protests.
Greenpeace USA said the plaintiffs had failed to support their claims over the years after the protests.
Earlier in February, a judge rejected Greenpeace’s requests to discard or limit parts of the case.
What is Greenpeace’s position?
Representatives of the environmental organization, founded more than 50 years ago, said the company simply wanted to silence critics of the oil industry.
“This test is a critical test for the future of the first amendment, both freedom of speech and the peaceful protest, under the Trump administration and then,” Greenpeace CEO said USA Sushma Raman told reporters. “A bad decision in this case could put our rights and freedoms in danger for all of us, whether we are journalists, protesters or anyone who wants to participate in a public debate.”
Greenpeace USA has helped support the “Safety, Direct Safety, Direct Action and Deer,” said senior legal advisor Diepa Padmanabha.
The transfer of energy claims that “anyone involved in protest training should be responsible for every person’s actions in this protest,” Padmanabha said. “So it is quite easy to see how, if successful, this type of tactic can have a serious freezing effect on anyone who may consider protest.”
Earlier in February, Greenpeace International brought an action for anti-institution in the District Court of Amsterdam against energy transfer, stating that the company acted wrong and had to pay the costs and damage arising from its “duty-free” litigation.
What does the energy transfer say?
A spokesman for the energy transfer said the case was that Greenpeace did not comply with the law.
“It’s not about free speech as they try to claim. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and legally protest. However, when this is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with this, “said Energy Transference spokesman Vicky Granado.
The company filed a similar case to the federal court in 2017, which the judge dismissed in 2019. Shortly thereafter, the transfer of energy brought a case to the State Court, which now turned to a lawsuit.
The transfer of energy started in 1996 with 20 employees and 200 miles (320 kilometers) natural gas pipelines. Today, the company of 11,000 employees owns and operates over 125,000 miles (200,000 kilometers) pipelines and related facilities.