Latest news with #TreyCox
Yahoo
24-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Greenpeace ruling mean for future protests?
Last week, a jury in North Dakota found an environmentalist organization guilty of defamation in a yearslong battle with one of the largest pipeline companies in the United States. After a two-day deliberation, the jury awarded $667 million in damages to Texas-based pipeline company Energy Transfer and Dakota Access LLC after it sued Greenpeace for its role in the protests that occurred nearly a decade ago over the Dakota Access Pipeline. The jury in Mandan, North Dakota, was given a laundry list of questions regarding Greenpeace's involvement in the protest — initially led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe — including if the group was liable for defamation, trespassing, conspiracy, etc. The Native American tribe has long been outspoken against the pipeline, arguing that it would be a threat to their water supply and sacred lands. In the lawsuit, Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of harming the company's reputation, encouraging vandalism to its equipment and putting its employees in harm's way. 'Its organizers trained protesters and even brought lockboxes they used to chain themselves to construction equipment. Protesters lobbed human feces and burning logs at security officers and vandalized construction equipment,' per The Wall Street Journal. However, since the verdict, Greenpeace has cried innocence, saying its involvement in the protests was misrepresented, and pledged to appeal the decision. 'What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer's blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace's role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take,' Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal counsel for Greenpeace USA, told The Washington Post. '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.' Legal representation for Energy Transfer also commented on the issue of First Amendment rights. Trey Cox, lead lawyer for the defendants, argued that the actions made by Greenpeace were not lawful. 'Peaceful protest is an inherent American right,' he said. 'However, violent and destructive protest is unlawful and unacceptable,' per The New York Times. Vicki Granado, a spokeswoman for Energy Transfer, added that '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.' 'It is also a win for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law.' The decision was less surprising in part because Greenpeace had initially and unsuccessfully tried to move the case due to fears of biased jurors living and being employed in the oil production region. The protests occurred between 2016 and 2017, involving monthlong encampments, and at times, protesters turned violent, creating a harsh environment for the people who lived in the area. Since the decision, many news outlets have speculated on how it will influence future actions by protesters and past national movements, such as the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020 and the Anti-Israel college protests following the Oct. 7, 2023, attack, viewing them as comparable offenses in the name of activism. James B. Meigs, Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute, said one similarity between these protests is that they all had 'hybrid protests,' in which the majority of peaceful demonstrators are joined by a lesser amount of conditioned agitators who turn the events toward violence. 'Energy Transfer's suit against Greenpeace represents the first major success in exposing and penalizing the putatively legitimate nonprofits that funnel money and material support to the lawbreakers embedding themselves in these hybrid protests,' he wrote in City Journal. 'If the enormous verdict survives the inevitable appeals, it will be a major shot across the bows of progressive organizations that quietly foment political mayhem while maintaining plausible deniability.' The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board shared a similar sentiment, writing that Greenpeace got what it deserved: 'If the verdict deters other self-righteous outfits from aiding violent protests, including those against Israel, so much the better,' they wrote. 'The left-wing group says the lawsuit is retribution for exercising its First Amendment speech and protest rights. But there's no First Amendment right to defame or destroy.' Environmentalists interpreted the verdict differently. Beyond Fossil Fuels, a coalition of civil society organizations posted on social media that ordering GreenPeace to pay millions in damages was 'unacceptable and sets a dangerous precedent. #Fossilfuel corporations cannot and will not sue activists into submission.' Michael Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University, told The Washington Post that though the verdict was unlikely to deter political activists, it could prevent them from actively protesting against fossil fuel projects while they're under construction. 'It sends a chilling message to physical climate protests — anything that actually disrupts fossil fuel production,' Gerrard said.
Dubai Eye
20-03-2025
- Business
- Dubai Eye
Greenpeace must pay $667m over US Standing Rock protests
Greenpeace must pay a Texas-based pipeline company nearly $667 million (AED 2.4 trillion) in damages for the environmental advocacy group's role in 2016-2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, a jury said Wednesday. The verdict in North Dakota state court came after two days of deliberations in a trial where pipeline company Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of paying protesters to disrupt construction of the pipeline unlawfully and spreading falsehoods about the controversial project, located near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The verdict included damages for defamation, trespassing and conspiracy. The jury awarded more than $400 million (AED 1.4 trillion) in punitive damages, which are intended to punish defendants for their conduct. Greenpeace denied wrongdoing and called the case an attack on free speech rights. The group's lawyers said they would appeal Wednesday's verdict. 'We're an advocacy group. We engage in peaceful protest,' said Greenpeace attorney Deepa Padmanabha, asserting that the group only played a minor role in the demonstrations. Energy Transfer lawyer Trey Cox said in a statement that Greenpeace's 'violent and destructive' protests were not legally protected speech. 'Today, the jury delivered a resounding verdict, declaring Greenpeace's actions wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards. It is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace,' Cox said. Construction of the pipeline was met with fierce protests by environmental and tribal advocacy groups who said the project would poison local water supply and exacerbate climate change. The project began in 2016 and was completed the following year. The pipeline transports roughly 40 per cent of the oil produced in North Dakota's Bakken region.
ARN News Center
20-03-2025
- Business
- ARN News Center
Greenpeace must pay $667m over US Standing Rock protests
Greenpeace must pay a Texas-based pipeline company nearly $667 million (AED 2.4 trillion) in damages for the environmental advocacy group's role in 2016-2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, a jury said Wednesday. The verdict in North Dakota state court came after two days of deliberations in a trial where pipeline company Energy Transfer accused Greenpeace of paying protesters to disrupt construction of the pipeline unlawfully and spreading falsehoods about the controversial project, located near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation. The verdict included damages for defamation, trespassing and conspiracy. The jury awarded more than $400 million (AED 1.4 trillion) in punitive damages, which are intended to punish defendants for their conduct. Greenpeace denied wrongdoing and called the case an attack on free speech rights. The group's lawyers said they would appeal Wednesday's verdict. 'We're an advocacy group. We engage in peaceful protest,' said Greenpeace attorney Deepa Padmanabha, asserting that the group only played a minor role in the demonstrations. Energy Transfer lawyer Trey Cox said in a statement that Greenpeace's 'violent and destructive' protests were not legally protected speech. 'Today, the jury delivered a resounding verdict, declaring Greenpeace's actions wrong, unlawful, and unacceptable by societal standards. It is a day of reckoning and accountability for Greenpeace,' Cox said. Construction of the pipeline was met with fierce protests by environmental and tribal advocacy groups who said the project would poison local water supply and exacerbate climate change. The project began in 2016 and was completed the following year. The pipeline transports roughly 40 per cent of the oil produced in North Dakota's Bakken region.
The Independent
20-03-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Activists slam US court decision ordering Greenpeace to pay millions to oil company: ‘Dangerous precedent'
Climate activists have criticised a North Dakota jury's decision ordering Greenpeace to pay over $660m (£508m) in damages to an oil company, calling it a 'dangerous precedent' that threatens the future of environmental activism and the right to protest in the US. Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL), accused Greenpeace of defamation, trespassing and conspiracy, and claimed the environmental group spread misinformation and orchestrated illegal activities during the 2016-2017 pipeline protests – one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history. After two days of deliberation, a jury on Wednesday held the environmental group guilty on almost all counts and ordered that Greenpeace USA pay nearly $404m (£311m) to the oil company. Greenpeace Fund Inc and Greenpeace International were ordered to pay roughly $131m (£100m) each. Energy Transfer framed the verdict as a victory against what it called 'lawless' activism. '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. Its attorney, Trey Cox, argued the case proved Greenpeace had 'abused' the right to protest. Greenpeace denied the allegations, calling the lawsuit a blatant attempt to bankrupt environmental defenders and silence dissent. The group said the ruling was part of a broader corporate effort to erode free speech and stifle environmental movements. 'Big Oil bullies around the world will continue to try to silence free speech and peaceful protest, but the fight against Energy Transfer's meritless SLAPP lawsuit is not over,' the organisation said. Interim executive director Sushma Raman called the case 'an attack on fundamental rights' and a threat to any group that dared challenge powerful corporations. '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,' she said. Although Greenpeace vowed to appeal the judgement, the organisation had said last month it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism. Many activists saw the ruling as a strategic attempt to silence dissent, setting a dangerous precedent for protest rights in the US. Marty Garbus, a veteran trial attorney, called the proceedings 'one of the most unfair trials' he had witnessed in his six-decade career. 'The law that comes down in this case can affect any demonstration, religious or political. It's far bigger than the environmental movement,' he said. 'It's far bigger than the environmental movement.' Oscar Soria, co-CEO of The Common Initiative and a former Greenpeace leader, told The Independent the verdict was 'a dangerous precedent that threatens the fundamental right to peaceful protest in America'. 'This outrageous verdict is nothing short of corporate tyranny masquerading as justice,' he said. Harjeet Singh, climate activist and founding director of the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, called the ruling 'a major setback for climate and social justice movements fighting to protect the rights of people and our planet'. 'This ruling attempts to silence those who stand against the destructive power of fossil fuel corporations. However, this struggle will not end, and we will not be intimidated,' he told The Independent. 'The responsibility for environmental destruction and the escalating climate crisis lies squarely with fossil fuel companies, and we must continue to hold them accountable. They cannot litigate away their culpability.' The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which led the protests against DAPL, denounced the lawsuit as an attempt to rewrite history. 'Energy Transfer is frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voices supporting Standing Rock,' tribe chairperson Janet Alkire said. The tribe has long argued that the pipeline crosses Sioux Nation treaty land and poses a threat to their water resources and community. Ms Alkire said the protests were called and organised by the tribe, with Greenpeace and other environmental groups acting as allies. 'The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced,' she said. Greenpeace's legal team also criticised the lawsuit for erasing Indigenous leadership in the movement. 'What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer's blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,' said Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor, Greenpeace USA. Kelcy Warren, Energy Transfer's billionaire founder and a major donor to Donald Trump, admitted in a video deposition that his company had offered financial incentives – including money, luxury ranch, and a new school – to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to end the protests, according to trial monitors who observed the proceedings. They said the tribe refused the offer, with Standing Rock leadership maintaining that their opposition to the pipeline was based on protecting their land and water. 'Offers such as this one are emblematic of the strategies often employed by extractive industries to secure compliance or mitigate opposition from affected communities,' the group wrote. Natali Segovia, executive director of the water protector Legal Collective, argued that the lawsuit was not about justice but about controlling the narrative. 'This case was a deliberate orchestration by a pipeline company not only to silence dissent, but to carefully shape a corporate narrative that demonises the environmental justice and Indigenous rights movements,' she said. With Greenpeace set to appeal the decision, legal experts said the case could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court and set a direction for future environmental and rights movements. 'At a time when the world needs people to stand up against an obvious erosion of rights in this country, we must recognise the verdict against Greenpeace is designed to instil fear and discourage people from exercising their constitutional right to protest,' Jeanne Mirer, president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said. The ruling also raises concerns about the financial sustainability of rights organisations like Greenpeace. Experts say most organisations are unlikely to be able to bear massive legal costs. However, a petition by Greenpeace's French chapter asking people to show support against the oil company's 'gag order' had accumulated over 290,000 signatures by Thursday morning. Mads Christensen, executive director of Greenpeace International, said: 'We are witnessing a disastrous return to the reckless behaviour that fuelled the climate crisis, deepened environmental racism, and put fossil fuel profits over public health and a liveable planet.'
Al Jazeera
20-03-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Greenpeace must pay $660m to oil company over pipeline protests, jury says
A jury in the United States has ordered Greenpeace to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in damages in a defamation lawsuit brought by oil pipeline operator Energy Transfer, raising serious free speech concerns. The environmental advocacy group has said it will appeal Wednesday's verdict, which came almost a decade after activists joined a protest led by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against the Dakota Access Pipeline, in one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history. The jury in North Dakota awarded more than $660m in damages across three Greenpeace entities, citing charges including trespass, nuisance, conspiracy and deprivation of property access. Energy Transfer, a Texas-based company worth $64bn, celebrated the verdict and has denied attempting to stifle speech. 'We would like to thank the judge and the jury for the incredible amount of time and effort they dedicated to this trial,' the company said in a statement. '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.' The nine-person jury in Mandan, North Dakota, deliberated for two days, in the trial which began in late February, before finding in favour of Energy Transfer on most counts. However, a group of lawyers who monitored the case, calling themselves the Trial Monitoring Committee, said many of the jurors had ties to the fossil fuel industry. 'Most jurors in the case have ties to the oil and gas industry and some openly admitted they could not be impartial, although the judge seated them anyway,' the committee said in a statement, following jury selection. Greenpeace plans to appeal the verdict. Greenpeace International is also countersuing Energy Transfer in the Netherlands, accusing the company of using nuisance lawsuits to suppress dissent. A hearing in that case is set for July 2. 'The fight against Big Oil is not over today,' said Greenpeace International General Counsel Kristin Casper. 'We know that the law and the truth are on our side.' The 'water protectors' of Standing Rock Energy Transfer's case against Greenpeace dates back to protests in North Dakota almost 10 years ago. In April 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe set up a protest camp along the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline route to stop construction, calling themselves 'water protectors'. The camp continued for more than a year, drawing support at first from other Indigenous people around the country and later from other activists, including environmental organisations like Greenpeace, and even hundreds of US Army veterans. Even as wintry conditions set in and hundreds of police patrolled the protests with waves of violent arrests which also targeted journalists, the Sioux and their supporters remained in place. According to Energy Transfer's lead lawyer Trey Cox's closing arguments, Greenpeace's role involved 'exploiting' the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe to advance its anti-fossil fuel agenda, according to the North Dakota Monitor. But Greenpeace maintains that it played only a small and peaceful role in the movement, which, it says, was led by Native Americans. As one Lakota organiser, Nick Tilsen, testified during the trial, the idea that Greenpeace organised the protests is 'paternalistic', according to the Lakota Times. Despite the protests, the pipeline, designed to transport fracked crude oil to refineries and on to global markets, became operational in 2017. Energy Transfer, however, continued its legal pursuit of Greenpeace, initially seeking $300m in damages through a federal lawsuit, which was dismissed. It then shifted its legal strategy to North Dakota's state courts, one of the minority of US states without protections against so-called 'Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation' (SLAPP). 'Drill, baby drill' Wednesday's verdict is another win for the fossil fuel industry, as President Donald Trump promises to open up the US to fossil fuel expansion, with his campaign slogan of 'drill, baby drill', including by eliminating air and water protections. Throughout the years-long legal fight, Energy Transfer's billionaire CEO Kelcy Warren, a major Trump donor, was often candid about his motivations. His 'primary objective' in suing Greenpeace, he said in interviews, was not just financial compensation but to 'send a message'. Warren went so far as to say that activists 'should be removed from the gene pool'. Critics call the case a textbook SLAPP, designed to silence dissent and drain financial resources. It comes as the Trump administration is also seeking to instate a wider crackdown on freedom of expression across the country. In a post on Bluesky responding to Wednesday's verdict, author and journalist Naomi Klein noted that 'attacks on protest and freedoms' affecting different movements including 'climate, Palestine, labor, migrant, trans and reproductive rights' should be seen as related. 'Fossil fuel companies should be forced to pay the public trillions in damages for the costs of planetary arson,' Klein added. Meanwhile, climate change is already contributing to increasingly severe and frequent disasters in the US and around the world, including recent fires in California, and an unprecedented inland hurricane in North Carolina. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed a new lawsuit last October against the US Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over a section of the pipeline upstream from the Standing Rock Reservation, arguing that the pipeline is operating illegally and must be shut down, according to the North Dakota Monitor.
