Latest news with #StrategicLawsuitAgainstPublicParticipation
Yahoo
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Nassau County exec tears into Dems, demands they pay legal bills for trying to stop armed volunteer program
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman tore into county Democrats who are suing to try to block his plan for a volunteer force of armed civilian deputies — calling it a politically motivated attack. The Republican argued in a newly filed counterclaim that the suit from two Democratic legislators was an attempt to 'punish, intimidate and harass' him over the deputy program, which critics have called a 'militia.' 'They brought a lawsuit against me to try to get me to not speak out about issues I think are important,' Blakeman said in a statement. 'They are trying to violate — not only my rights as an individual citizen — but my rights as county executive to represent the people of Nassau County.' Blakeman's attorneys said the lawsuit qualifies as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, and they're now asking for a judge to toss the case and force the Dems to pay his legal fees. The first court hearing is set for June 19 in state Supreme Court in Mineola — a high-stakes showdown that could set precedent for how far local governments can go in enlisting armed civilians for public safety efforts. Last year, Blakeman announced the plan and said all he's done is create a database of potential volunteers who were vetted and trained to assist in 'very extreme circumstances' when county police are overwhelmed. Blakeman claims the program is fully legal and rooted in public safety concerns — but critics like county Legislature Minority Leader Delia DeRiggi-Whitton blasted the force as a 'militia,' comparing them to untrained Nazi civilian forces. 'There was something called the brownshirts, which was basically having civilians all of a sudden become part of law enforcement without the training,' she said, comparing the policies. The lawsuit filed Feb. 4 by Democratic Legislators Debra Mulé and Scott Davis argued Blakeman violated municipal law by unilaterally creating the 'provisional special deputies program' using public funds — and then stonewalling FOIL requests for basic information about how it works. The suit claims the program includes expenses that qualify as illegal spending of taxpayer money — including shelling out funds for background checks, conducting random drug screening, providing training, and a $150-per-day stipend when they are activated. Carey Dunne, attorney for Mulé and Davis, slammed Blakeman's SLAPP counterclaim as a dangerous overreach, and said the case could have sweeping consequences nationwide if Blakeman's argument gains traction. 'You can't have political actors in this country allowed to sue private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights,' Dunne said, noting that while the plaintiffs are lawmakers, they filed as private residents and taxpayers. 'The initial impetus for filing the lawsuit was to discourage the government from creating a private militia. Now there are two dimensions to this case,' Dunne said. 'If that [SLAPP argument] were to take hold, that would be a serious setback for civil liberties.'
New York Post
18-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Nassau County exec tears into Dems, demands they pay legal bills for trying to stop armed volunteer program
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman tore into county Democrats who are suing to try to block his plan for a volunteer force of armed civilian deputies — calling it a politically motivated attack. The Republican argued in a newly filed counterclaim that the suit from two Democratic legislators was an attempt to 'punish, intimidate and harass' him over the deputy program, which critics have called a 'militia.' 'They brought a lawsuit against me to try to get me to not speak out about issues I think are important,' Blakeman said in a statement. 'They are trying to violate — not only my rights as an individual citizen — but my rights as county executive to represent the people of Nassau County.' Advertisement Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman ripped county Democrats for suing to block his plan to create a volunteer force of armed civilian deputies. Dennis A. Clark Blakeman's attorneys said the lawsuit qualifies as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, and they're now asking for a judge to toss the case and force the Dems to pay his legal fees. The first court hearing is set for June 19 in state Supreme Court in Mineola — a high-stakes showdown that could set precedent for how far local governments can go in enlisting armed civilians for public safety efforts. Advertisement Last year, Blakeman announced the plan and said all he's done is create a database of potential volunteers who were vetted and trained to assist in 'very extreme circumstances' when county police are overwhelmed. Blakeman claims the program is fully legal and rooted in public safety concerns — but critics like county Legislature Minority Leader Delia DeRiggi-Whitton blasted the force as a 'militia,' comparing them to untrained Nazi civilian forces. 'There was something called the brownshirts, which was basically having civilians all of a sudden become part of law enforcement without the training,' she said, comparing the policies. Advertisement The lawsuit filed Feb. 4 by Democratic Legislators Debra Mulé and Scott Davis argued Blakeman violated municipal law by unilaterally creating the 'provisional special deputies program' using public funds — and then stonewalling FOIL requests for basic information about how it works. The suit claims the program includes expenses that qualify as illegal spending of taxpayer money — including shelling out funds for background checks, conducting random drug screening, providing training, and a $150-per-day stipend when they are activated. Carey Dunne, attorney for Mulé and Davis, slammed Blakeman's SLAPP counterclaim as a dangerous overreach, and said the case could have sweeping consequences nationwide if Blakeman's argument gains traction. 'You can't have political actors in this country allowed to sue private citizens for exercising their constitutional rights,' Dunne said, noting that while the plaintiffs are lawmakers, they filed as private residents and taxpayers. Advertisement 'The initial impetus for filing the lawsuit was to discourage the government from creating a private militia. Now there are two dimensions to this case,' Dunne said. 'If that [SLAPP argument] were to take hold, that would be a serious setback for civil liberties.'
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Court finds Greenpeace liable in case over Dakota Access Pipeline
A court in North Dakota has found Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars over actions to combat the Dakota Access Pipeline. The environmental organization will be liable for about $660 million per the verdict readout in court, Greenpeace USA interim Executive Director Sushma Raman said in a statement shared through a spokesperson. That amount could put Greenpeace at risk of bankruptcy. The group vowed to fight the verdict. 'This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight,' Raman said. 'Energy Transfer knows we don't have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.' Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline that had accused Greenpeace of defamation and trespass, among other activities, celebrated the decision. 'While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace,' the company said. 'It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That the disrupters have been held responsible is a win for all of us,' the company's statement continued. Greenpeace has argued that it only played a small role in the protests, which drew massive crowds that were opposed to the project. The group has argued that the case was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation suit and an attempt to silence critics. 'This is a freedom of speech issue. This is a First Amendment case,' Greenpeace spokesperson Madison Carter said in an interview ahead of the verdict. She expressed concern that a verdict against Greenpeace would 'have a chilling effect for any organization that is interested in advocacy.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
19-03-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Court finds Greenpeace liable in case over Dakota Access Pipeline
A court in North Dakota has found Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars over actions to combat the Dakota Access Pipeline. The environmental organization will be liable for around $660 million per the verdict readout in court, said interim executive director of Greenpeace USA Sushma Raman, in a statement shared through a spokesperson. That amount could put Greenpeace at risk of bankruptcy. The group vowed to fight the verdict. 'This is the end of a chapter, but not the end of our fight,' Raman said. 'Energy Transfer knows we don't have $660 million. They want our silence, not our money.' Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline which had accused Greenpeace of defamation and trespass, among other activities, celebrated the decision. 'While we are pleased that Greenpeace has been held accountable for their actions against us, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace,' the company said. 'It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That the disrupters have been held responsible is a win for all of us,' the company's statement continued. Greenpeace has argued that it only played a small role in the protests, which drew massive crowds that were opposed to the project. The group has argued that the case was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) suit and an attempt to silence critics. 'This is a freedom of speech issue. This is a First Amendment case,' Greenpeace spokesperson Madison Carter said in an interview ahead of the verdict. She expressed concern that a verdict against Greenpeace would 'have a chilling effect for any organization that is interested in advocacy.'
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Jury finds Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions in pipeline case
A jury in North Dakota on Wednesday ordered Greenpeace to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in a case brought by a US pipeline operator that had been closely watched for its far-reaching free speech implications. The verdict dealt a massive blow to the prominent environmental advocacy group, which was accused by the operator of the Dakota Access Pipeline, Energy Transfer (ET), of orchestrating a campaign of violence and defamation. "We would like to thank the judge and the jury for the incredible amount of time and effort they dedicated to this trial," said ET. "While we are pleased that Greenpeace will be held accountable for their actions, this win is really for the people of Mandan and throughout North Dakota who had to live through the daily harassment and disruptions caused by the protesters who were funded and trained by Greenpeace." Nearly a decade ago, the Standing Rock Sioux tribe led one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history against the project's construction. Hundreds were arrested and injured, prompting concerns from the United Nations over violations of Indigenous sovereignty. The pipeline, which transports fracked crude oil to refineries and global markets, has been operational since 2017. But Energy Transfer continued to pursue legal action against three Greenpeace entities -- first in a federal lawsuit seeking $300 million, which was dismissed, and then at the state level in North Dakota. A trial began in late February in Mandan, North Dakota, and the jury deliberated for nearly three days before returning their verdict. "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," Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor of Greenpeace USA said in a statement. "Greenpeace will continue to do its part to fight for the protection of these fundamental rights for everyone." Critics had called the case a clear example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP), designed to silence dissent and drain financial resources. Notably, North Dakota is among the minority of US states without anti-SLAPP protections. Greenpeace also maintained that it played only a small role in the protest movement, which was led by Native Americans. More than 400 organizations, along with public figures such as singer Billie Eilish and actors Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon, had signed an open letter in support of Greenpeace, as had hundreds of thousands of individuals globally. ia/jgc
