Latest news with #GreenpeaceUSA
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to ‘punish' someone for pipeline protests
Greenpeace Senior Legal Adviser Deepa Padmanabha, second from left, and other attorneys representing Greenpeace speak to the media March 19, 2025, outside the Morton County Courthouse. (Amy Dalrymple/North Dakota Monitor) Attorneys for Greenpeace argued this week that a jury's decision ordering it to pay $667 million to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline cannot stand. A Morton County jury delivered the verdict on March 19 after more than three weeks of trial. Jurors found the environmental group responsible for damages related to anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, as well as for publishing defamatory statements about Energy Transfer. Greenpeace says the jury's decision was not based on fact, but bias against the protest movement. 'What the verdict in this case reflected, your honor, is the community's desire to punish someone who was involved in the protests,' said Everett Jack, an attorney representing Greenpeace's U.S. affiliate. The arguments followed a hearing earlier this month during which Greenpeace asked Southwest Judicial District Court Judge James Gion to reduce the $667 million award if he moves forward with a judgment against the environmental group. Energy Transfer wants Gion to uphold the jury's decision in full. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million The award includes more than $200 million of compensatory damages — or money meant to make the plaintiffs whole for financial harms — and another roughly $400 million in punitive damages. Energy Transfer's core argument is that Greenpeace trained protesters to wage violent attacks to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline and that it deliberately published false statements to sabotage the company's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that sent representatives to south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the lawsuit is an attempt to discourage environmental activism. During a Tuesday hearing, attorneys representing the environmental group doubled down on their claims that Energy Transfer presented no concrete evidence during the trial that Greenpeace caused the company to suffer financially. The lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, its United States-based fundraising arm. Only Greenpeace USA had employees at the protests. Greenpeace USA says it had six staff members visit to provide peripheral support to the Indigenous-led demonstrations, including supplies and nonviolent trainings. Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox argued that Gion has no reason not to honor the jury's verdict. Cox said the acts the jury found Greenpeace liable for — including defamatory speech, trespassing and abuse of property — do not count as constitutionally protected speech. 'They're trying to wrap themselves in the First Amendment,' he said. Cox said Greenpeace is willfully ignoring documentation Energy Transfer presented to the jury linking Greenpeace personnel to attacks against the pipeline, and that the jury's decision is the most important indicator of the evidence's credibility. Attorneys also asked Gion to toss the jury's verdict finding the three organizations liable for defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace published nine defamatory statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline that harmed the energy company's business relationships. In the United States, the standard for proving defamation claims is high — especially for individuals and organizations in the public eye. Greenpeace attorneys said the nine statements don't meet this threshold for multiple reasons. For one, each of the nine statements was either factually true or reflected opinions about what happened at Standing Rock, Jack said. Energy Transfer also did not demonstrate that Greenpeace made the statements knowing they were false or with 'reckless disregard' for their veracity, which are other key standards required for proving defamation, he added. Greenpeace has also said it was not the first to circulate the statements, and that they were contemporaneously published by hundreds of other organizations and media outlets. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Judges must act as the 'gatekeeper' on defamation claims to make sure the decision does not violate free speech rights, Adam Caldwell, an attorney representing Greenpeace International, argued. This standard was set in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on defamation New York Times v. Sullivan, he said. Jack also argued that under North Dakota law, proving a defamation claim requires that a third party testify that they believe the statements in question are defamatory. He said none of Energy Transfer's witnesses fulfilled this requirement. He pointed to the testimony of Greenpeace employees who said they believed the statements were true and came from credible sources. Cox said jurors likely rejected this testimony as unconvincing. 'Given the very large exemplary damage award, we can readily infer that this jury found these witnesses to be liars,' Cox said. 'We found them to be concealing things, to be hiding things, to be non-credible.' Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund — which does not engage in organizing activities — say Energy Transfer has no right to involve them in the case. Neither had any personnel visit North Dakota. Greenpeace International says it is not subject to the court's jurisdiction because it is a Netherlands-based organization that was not involved in the protests. 'The only evidence was affirmative evidence from International that it had never set foot in North Dakota,' Caldwell said. 'It's a textbook case of lack of personal jurisdiction.' While Greenpeace International did sign onto a letter that included two of the statements the jury found defamatory, it was one of more than 500 signatories, he said. Greenpeace Fund similarly said there was no evidence linking it to the case. 'We shouldn't be here,' said Matt Kelly, an attorney representing the organization. Energy Transfer has argued that Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International conspired with Greenpeace USA on its anti-pipeline efforts. The jury found Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA liable for conspiracy, but not Greenpeace Fund. Gion took the motions under advisement. The parties also recently presented arguments on a separate set of motions asking Gion to reduce the jury's nearly $667 million award against Greenpeace. Greenpeace claims the award exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. If the jury's decision is allowed to stand, defendants have the option to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International have disclosed their intent to appeal. This story was originally published by the North Dakota Monitor. Like South Dakota Searchlight, it's part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. North Dakota Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Amy Dalrymple for questions: info@
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Greenpeace seeks reversal of verdict, arguing jury wanted to ‘punish' someone for pipeline protests
Snow covers the ground at Oceti Sakowin Camp on the edge of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation on Dec. 3, 2016, outside Cannon Ball, N.D. (Photo by) Attorneys for Greenpeace argued this week that a jury's decision ordering it to pay $667 million to the developer of the Dakota Access Pipeline cannot stand. A Morton County jury delivered the verdict on March 19 after more than three weeks of trial. Jurors found the environmental group responsible for damages related to anti-pipeline protests in North Dakota in 2016 and 2017, as well as for publishing defamatory statements about Energy Transfer. Greenpeace says the jury's decision was not based on fact, but bias against the protest movement. 'What the verdict in this case reflected, your honor, is the community's desire to punish someone who was involved in the protests,' said Everett Jack, an attorney representing Greenpeace's U.S. affiliate. More Dakota Access Pipeline coverage The arguments followed a hearing earlier this month during which Greenpeace asked Southwest Judicial District Court Judge James Gion to reduce the $667 million award if he moves forward with a judgment against the environmental group. Energy Transfer wants Gion to uphold the jury's decision in full. The award includes more than $200 million of compensatory damages — or money meant to make the plaintiffs whole for financial harms — and another roughly $400 million in punitive damages. Energy Transfer's core argument is that Greenpeace trained protesters to wage violent attacks to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline and that it deliberately published false statements to sabotage the company's business. Greenpeace was one of many activist groups that sent representatives to south-central North Dakota to protest in solidarity with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. It denies Energy Transfer's allegations and says the lawsuit is an attempt to discourage environmental activism. During a Tuesday hearing, attorneys representing the environmental group doubled down on their claims that Energy Transfer presented no concrete evidence during the trial that Greenpeace caused the company to suffer financially. The lawsuit is against three Greenpeace entities: Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA, and Greenpeace Fund, its United States-based fundraising arm. Only Greenpeace USA had employees at the protests. Greenpeace USA says it had six staff members visit to provide peripheral support to the Indigenous-led demonstrations, including supplies and nonviolent trainings. Energy Transfer attorney Trey Cox argued that Gion has no reason not to honor the jury's verdict. Cox said the acts the jury found Greenpeace liable for — including defamatory speech, trespassing and abuse of property — do not count as constitutionally protected speech. 'They're trying to wrap themselves in the First Amendment,' he said. Cox said Greenpeace is willfully ignoring documentation Energy Transfer presented to the jury linking Greenpeace personnel to attacks against the pipeline, and that the jury's decision is the most important indicator of the evidence's credibility. Attorneys also asked Gion to toss the jury's verdict finding the three organizations liable for defamation. Energy Transfer alleges that Greenpeace published nine defamatory statements about the Dakota Access Pipeline that harmed the energy company's business relationships. In the United States, the standard for proving defamation claims is high — especially for individuals and organizations in the public eye. Greenpeace attorneys said the nine statements don't meet this threshold for multiple reasons. Jury finds Greenpeace at fault for protest damages, awards pipeline developer more than $660 million For one, each of the nine statements was either factually true or reflected opinions about what happened at Standing Rock, Jack said. Energy Transfer also did not demonstrate that Greenpeace made the statements knowing they were false or with 'reckless disregard' for their veracity, which are other key standards required for proving defamation, he added. Greenpeace has also said it was not the first to circulate the statements, and that they were contemporaneously published by hundreds of other organizations and media outlets. Judges must act as the 'gatekeeper' on defamation claims to make sure the decision does not violate free speech rights, Adam Caldwell, an attorney representing Greenpeace International, argued. This standard was set in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case on defamation New York Times v. Sullivan, he said. Jack also argued that under North Dakota law, proving a defamation claim requires that a third party testify that they believe the statements in question are defamatory. He said none of Energy Transfer's witnesses fulfilled this requirement. He pointed to the testimony of Greenpeace employees who said they believed the statements were true and came from credible sources. Cox said jurors likely rejected this testimony as unconvincing. 'Given the very large exemplary damage award, we can readily infer that this jury found these witnesses to be liars,' Cox said. 'We found them to be concealing things, to be hiding things, to be non-credible.' Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Fund — which does not engage in organizing activities — say Energy Transfer has no right to involve them in the case. Neither had any personnel visit North Dakota. Greenpeace International says it is not subject to the court's jurisdiction because it is a Netherlands-based organization that was not involved in the protests. 'The only evidence was affirmative evidence from International that it had never set foot in North Dakota,' Caldwell said. 'It's a textbook case of lack of personal jurisdiction.' While Greenpeace International did sign onto a letter that included two of the statements the jury found defamatory, it was one of more than 500 signatories, he said. Greenpeace Fund similarly said there was no evidence linking it to the case. 'We shouldn't be here,' said Matt Kelly, an attorney representing the organization. Energy Transfer has argued that Greenpeace Fund and Greenpeace International conspired with Greenpeace USA on its anti-pipeline efforts. The jury found Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA liable for conspiracy, but not Greenpeace Fund. Gion took the motions under advisement. The parties also recently presented arguments on a separate set of motions asking Gion to reduce the jury's nearly $667 million award against Greenpeace. Greenpeace claims the award exceeds statutory caps on damages and that the verdict is riddled with inconsistencies. If the jury's decision is allowed to stand, defendants have the option to appeal the verdict to the North Dakota Supreme Court. Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International have disclosed their intent to appeal. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Ripple CEO donates ‘skull of Satoshi' in surprise peace offering
While Bitcoin is the largest cryptocurrency, other leading cryptocurrencies, such as Ethereum, XRP, and SOL, are always vying to capture the top spot. Though the intense competition among different crypto assets often leads to heated debates among the community, it ultimately benefits users as blockchain networks keep getting faster and safer due to the continuous efforts of the developers to attract a larger user base. Amid such intense rivalry, Brad Garlinghouse, the billionaire CEO of the blockchain tech and payments firm Ripple, has extended an olive branch to bridge the gap between different crypto communities. On May 28, it came to light that Ripple donated an art installation called the "Skull of Satoshi" to the Bitcoin community. Satoshi Nakamoto is the name used by the pseudonymous individual or group who developed Bitcoin. As crypto and blockchain technologies become widely used, it's time for crypto communities to set aside their differences in order to work together to push the industry forward, Ripple CEO wrote on X. Garlinghouse said though the "Skull of Satoshi" was created to raise awareness about energy usage, it's now a symbol of Bitcoin's "incredible staying power" to individuals around the globe, including himself. He added that BTC, XRP, and other crypto communities have "more in common than we think." Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong teamed up with Greenpeace USA, a leading environmental advocacy organization, to create the art installation and unveiled it in March 2023. Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen had supported the initiative that criticized Bitcoin for "ravenous" consumption of fossil fuels due to its "outdated" code. However, Ripple's support for the installation was also understood to be a dig at a leading rival. Von Wong later said the installation wasn't meant to be "anti-Bitcoin" and mining wasn't a "simple black-and-white issue," as they earlier believed. The artist hoped that Bitcoin would shift toward a sustainable model. The Bitcoin community nonetheless embraced "Skull of Satoshi," even if ironically. The installation is currently on display at the ongoing Bitcoin 2025 conference in Las Vegas and will find its permanent home at the Bitcoin Museum in Nashville. Ripple CEO donates 'skull of Satoshi' in surprise peace offering first appeared on TheStreet on May 28, 2025 Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNBC
25-04-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Trump signs order to boost deep-sea mining, seeking to break China's critical minerals dominance
U.S. President Donald Trump has signed a sweeping executive order to jump-start the controversial practice of deep-sea mining, seeking to offset China's dominant position in critical mineral supply chains. The administration is seeking to fast-track the pursuit of strategically important minerals such as nickel, copper and rare earth elements from the seabed in U.S. and international waters. "The United States has a core national security and economic interest in maintaining leadership in deep sea science and technology and seabed mineral resources," Trump said in the executive order Thursday. The unilateral action is intended "to counter China's growing influence over seabed mineral resources," strengthen partnerships with allies and ensure U.S. firms are "well positioned" to support those interested in developing seabed minerals responsibly. The order, which critics say contradicts global efforts to adopt regulation, directs the Trump administration to expedite mining permits under the Deep Seabed Hard Minerals Act of 1980. It also seeks to establish a process for issuing permits along the U.S. outer continental shelf and, notably, calls for the expedited review of seabed mining permits "in areas beyond national jurisdiction." The practice of deep-sea mining involves using heavy machinery to remove minerals and metals from the seabed, where they build up into potato-sized nodules. The end-use of these minerals are wide-ranging and include electric vehicle batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. Advocates of the practice say deep-sea mining could be a highly lucrative industry that ultimately reduces the reliance of large mining operations on land. Scientists, however, warn that the full environmental impacts of deep-sea mining are hard to predict. Environmental campaign groups say the practice cannot be done sustainably and will lead to ecosystem destruction and species extinction. "We condemn this administration's attempt to launch this destructive industry on the high seas in the Pacific by bypassing the United Nations process," Greenpeace USA's Arlo Hemphill said on Friday. "This is an insult to multilateralism and a slap in the face to all the countries and millions of people around the world who oppose this dangerous industry," Hemphill said in a statement. The International Seabed Authority (ISA), a little-known U.N. regulator that oversees deep-sea mining, has for years been seeking to resolve deep-sea mining's murky future before any mining activity begins. It is considering standards to regulate the exploitation and extraction of polymetallic nodules and other deposits on the ocean floor. Negotiators have been trying to ensure formal rules are in place by the end of 2025 — leading critics of Trump's executive order to question its timing. The ISA was established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a treaty which the U.S. has not ratified. The agency is responsible for both the exploitation and conservation of an area that covers around 54% of the world's oceans. ISA Secretary-General Leticia Carvalho told CNBC last year that it remains feasible ISA member states can agree on some form of regulation by the end of 2025. "This alignment of the private sector with the U.S. administration could escalate global geopolitical tensions over critical minerals and control of international waters," analysts at Eurasia Group said in a research note published Thursday. "U.S. dismissal of UN processes will probably lead to unexpected country alliances in opposition," they added. For instance, actions taken by the U.S. and Canada-based deep-sea mining exploration firm The Metals Company have been criticized by more than 40 countries, including China, Russia and Britain, among others. "Norway, which had previously considered seabed mining within its national waters, has now aligned with China, India, and Poland — countries typically more supportive of streamlining approval processes for industrial-scale deep sea mining — to oppose U.S. actions," analysts at Eurasia Group said. "The concern centers on the U.S. abruptly bypassing previously agreed processes on deep-sea mining," they added.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Controversial climate group facing bankruptcy, how did it get here?
One of the leading global environmental networks has been drained of hundreds of millions over the years as a result of several lawsuits filed against their involvement in anti-oil protests. Greenpeace, an international environmentalist group, has been at the center of several highly controversial environmental cases over the years and has been accused of hiring protesters and rioters to advance their cause. Most recently, Greenpeace was found liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages resulting from a pipeline protest. The group recently said that such a ruling could "shut down Greenpeace USA." Here are some of the top cases that got Greenpeace to the dire straits it is in right now. More than 800 people were arrested in 2016 during a monthslong protest, led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, opposing construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), an oil pipeline that runs from North Dakota to Illinois. Jury Finds Greenpeace Liable, Ordered To Pay Hundreds Of Millions Over Dakota Access Oil Pipeline Protests Read On The Fox News App Energy Transfer, the developer of the pipeline, sued Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International for $300 million on claims the climate groups orchestrated the protests by providing resources to the activists and, therefore, were liable for the expenses that resulted from construction being postponed. In March 2025, a North Dakota jury found Greenpeace liable for about $660 million resulting from the protest. Greenpeace Vows More Legal Action After Getting Hit With $660M Ruling That Would 'Shut Down' Organization "Our lawsuit is about recovering damages for the harm Greenpeace caused our company. It is not about free speech. Their organizing, funding, and encouraging the unlawful destruction of property and the dissemination of misinformation goes well beyond the exercise of free speech. We look forward to proving our case, and we trust the North Dakota legal system to do that." The weekslong Morton County trial, which began in late February, heard testimony that claimed that Greenpeace not only trained the DAPL protesters, but purchased supplies to aid their resistance. Greenpeace described the battle as "one of the most consequential free speech cases in recent history." Greenpeace settled a lawsuit with Shell after four individuals affiliated with the group boarded and occupied a Shell oil company vessel for two weeks in 2023. The activists "unlawfully scaled" a moving vessel in the North Sea while carrying a banner reading "Stop Drilling. Start Paying." Because of this incident, Greenpeace was ordered to make a payment of 300k pounds to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the group was barred from going within 500 meters of a Shell platform in the North Sea. In 2020, the Norwegian Supreme Court ruled against Greenpeace's attempt to block new oil exploration in the country. Greenpeace was joined by Young Friends of the Earth Norway in a 2016 lawsuit filed against the Norwegian Government after several new oil and gas leases were granted in the Balian Sea. The lawsuit, known as "People vs. the Arctic," was the first case to challenge the country's constitution on environmental rights. The environmental groups claimed that the Arctic drilling would violate Section 112 of the Norwegian Constitution, which states that everyone has the right to a healthy environment. Despite extensive appeals, Greenpeace failed to secure a single victory in the Norwegian court system, which found at every level that the government in that they did not violate the country's constitution. Dark Money Fund Poured Millions Of Dollars Into Eco Activist Groups Blocking Highways, Destroying Famous Art Commenting on the North Dakota ruling, a representative for Energy Transfer told Fox News Digital it was "very pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us and that the jury recognized these were not law-abiding, peaceful protests as Greenpeace tried to claim." The representative said their victory was shared with the local native tribe and people throughout North Dakota who "had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace." "It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law," said the representative, adding, "that Greenpeace has been held responsible is a win for all of us." Sushma Raman, a representative for Greenpeace USA, told Fox News Digital that the group will be appealing the decision, saying, "we will not back down from this fight, and we will not be silenced." Greenpeace Co-founder: No Scientific Proof Humans Are Dominant Cause Of Warming Climate Raman said that Energy Transfer "knows we don't have $660 million" and claimed "they want our silence, not our money." "This case should alarm everyone, no matter their political inclinations," she said. "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." A representative for Greenpeace International pointed out to Fox News Digital that the ruling does not impact Greenpeace's 24 other national and regional organizations. The representative said these groups will "continue functioning as normal even in the worst case scenario." The representative also pointed out that Greenpeace is counter-suing Energy Transfer in a Netherlands court to recover all fines lost in the North Dakota article source: Controversial climate group facing bankruptcy, how did it get here?
