A court in North Dakota Ordered Greenpeace to Pay Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Damages To Energy Transfer, The Pipeline Company Behind the Dakota Access Pipeline.
The Company Sued Greenpeace for $ 300 million for arranging demonstrations Near the standing rock booking in 2016.
The Oil Route was Highly Controversial and Inspired Large-Scale Protests at the time, Stemming From Concerns About The Violation of Rights of Native Indian Tribes.
A Long Legal Battle Over Dakota Access Pipeline
The Underground Multi-State Pipeline, which is 1.172 Miles (1.186 kilometres) Long, Has Be in Operation Since Mid -2017.
But the Pipeline Has Face numerous Legal Challenges Both Before and after it was Built
In 2016, The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, A Federally Recognized Tribe Based in North Dakota, Protested Against The Construction of the Pipeline Because They Feared That APossible Oil Spill Could Contaminate Their Water Supplies
Other indigenous Indian Tribes Who Live Near the Pipeline Route, Environmental Groups and Celebristies like Leonardo DiCaprio
What does the Lawsuit Say?
The Lawsuit Brought by Energy Transfer and Its SubkotaCess Accused Netherlands-Based Greenpeace International and Greenpeace U.S.A. of Defamation, Trespass, Nuisance, Civil Conspiracy andOther Act The Lawsuit So Named the Group’s Funding ARM, Greenpeace Fund Inc.
During Opening Statements, The Company’s Attorney Trey Cox Alleged Greenpeace Paid Outsiders To Come Into the Area and Protest, Sent Blockade Supplies, Organized Or Led Protesters Training and Made Untrue Statements About The Project to QUIT I.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace Entities Said there is no proof to the cases which Greenpeace Employees Had Little or no Involvement in the Protests.
The Storied Environmental Organization So Said It Had Nothing to do with Energy Transfer’s Delays in Construction and Refinancing The Oil Pipeline.
Judgage Threats Operations of Greenpeace U.S.A.
Greenpeace Representative Warned in a declaration in 2014 that a $ 300 million Judgment would certainly Shut Down the Us Affiliate of the Organization.
They have claimed that the legal action stood for an important examination of initial modification civil liberties that safeguards individuals appropriate to reveal their sights with objection and can threate the company’s future.
A spokesper for power transfer prevished Said the legal action has to do with greenpeace not adhering to the regulation, not totally free speech.
Edited by: Sean Sinico
