Good day all. On Wednesday, March 19th, a jury found the environmental organization responsible for damages from a major protest against the construction of a pipeline. They have been ordered to pay $660 million dollars in damages to the company that was trying to build a pipeline in North Dakota.
The protests took place in 2016 and 2017. I have a vague memory of this. Apparently, Greenpeace was was paying to support the protests and the blockades that slowed the construction of the pipeline. This led to the lawsuit against Greenpeace and now the jury has rendered it’s verdict. Here are the details from Fox News:
The environmental group Greenpeace has been ordered by a North Dakota jury to pay more than $660 million in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline’s construction.
Dallas-based Energy Transfer and subsidiary Dakota Access accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts. Greenpeace USA was found liable for all counts, while the others were found liable for some. The damages owed will be spread out in different amounts over the three entities.
I was not aware of this lawsuit against Greenpeace. They have a long history of anti-energy and generally anti-free enterprise activities. One of the founders and a past president, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace and has said that they have moved from science and logic to using scare tactics. The group is also hard left wing, with views towards socialism and communism. Greenpeace has been incredibly destructive in the EU and has done a lot of damage in the United States. Of course, Greenpeace doesn’t see it that way.
In a news release, Greenpeace called the lawsuit “meritless.”
Obviously, the courts and a jury disagreed with that sentiment.
“This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations,” said Sushma Raman, interim executive director Greenpeace Inc, Greenpeace Fund. “It’s part of a renewed push by corporations to weaponize our courts to silence dissent. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech.”
These protests are anything but peaceful. As I said, I don’t recall the protests in North Dakota, however, it looks like they went violent and destructive. When the protesters stormed private property, the gloves came off and the National Guard came in to back up local and state law enforcement.
From my research, it looks like one of the tribes was claiming that the pipeline would damage water supplies. That is a load of manure and for a number of very simple reasons. The big one is that it’s in the pipeline company’s interests to not have that happen. They have processes and procedures in place to prevent leaks and if one should happen, to repair the leak and clean up any contamination. Leaks cost money so it’s cheaper to prevent them in the first place.
Greenpeace said earlier that a large award to the pipeline company would threaten to bankrupt the organization.
After the verdict, Deepa Padmanabha, Greenpeace’s senior legal adviser, said the group’s work “is never going to stop.”
“That’s the really important message today, and we’re just walking out and we’re going to get together and figure out what our next steps are,” she said outside the courthouse.
The organization said it plans to appeal the decision.
Without question, Greenpeace is going to appeal this decision. They really don’t have a choice. That judgment will bankrupt and end Greenpeace. As to the Free Speech claims, there is a major difference between speech and action.
The company said the lawsuit wasn’t about free speech, but instead, about protesters not following the law.
Blocking roads, storming private property and destroying equipment, (Although I don’t know if this happened in this event), is not protesting. It’s also not protected under the First Amendment. If the protesters had just marched around, making noise and waving signs, then they would have been acting within the First Amendment.
Free speech and environmental advocates have criticized the trial, saying the lawsuit was about silencing protest and meant to bankrupt opponents.
The problem with all these “Environmental Advocates” is they are quick to move to direct action where they do damage and cause injuries when no one pays any attention to their rantings, ravings, sign waiving and drum banging. When they cross that line, as they are want to do, they need to be utterly and completely crushed and destroyed within the law and the Constitution. This is what, potentially, will happen to Greenpeace and, in my opinion, should happen.
Thatisall
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...
~The Angry Webmaster~
