By JACK DURA
MANDAN, N.D. (AP) — A North Dakota jury on Wednesday found Greenpeace liable for defamation and other claims brought by a pipeline company in connection with protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Related Articles
In call with Zelenskyy, Trump suggests US control Ukrainian power plants for security
University of California to order hiring freeze as it braces for federal funding cuts
SpaceX engineer abruptly resigns from Fannie Mae board
The high cost of fixing Lake Tahoe: Famed alpine lake still murky after decades of efforts
Vancouver International Auto Show removes Tesla, citing safety concerns at event
The nine-person jury awarded Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.
The lawsuit had accused Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, Greenpeace USA and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. of defamation, trespass, nuisance, civil conspiracy and other acts.
The case reaches back to protests in 2016 and 2017 against the Dakota Access oil pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s reservation. For years the tribe has opposed the line as a risk to its water supply. The multistate pipeline has been transporting oil since mid-2017.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Trey Cox has said Greenpeace carried out a scheme to stop the pipeline’s construction. During opening statements, he alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area and protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester trainings, and made untrue statements about the project to stop it.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities said there is no evidence to the claims, that Greenpeace employees had little or no involvement in the protests and the organizations had nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s delays in construction or refinancing.
Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is a critical test of First Amendment free speech and protest rights and could threaten the organization’s future. A spokesperson for Energy Transfer previously said the lawsuit is about Greenpeace not following the law, not free speech.
