Greenpeace sounds the alarm on the legal attack of the pipeline firm

The trial of a company in Texas Pipeline that accuses Greenpeace of defamation, disturbances and attacks during protests against the Dakota access pipeline, goes to the Northern Dakota Monday, in a case, the environment for the environment says it threatens the rights of free expression and its future.

The process runs from the protests in 2016 and 2017 on the planned crossing of the Missouri Pipeline river, upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe. The tribe has long argued that the pipe threatens its water supply. Of the thousands of people who protested against the project, hundreds were arrested.

Energy transfer and its Dakota Access Suspension, Hudent, defamation and other offenses by Greenpeace International, based in its American Netherlands, US Greenpeace. The process also calls the group’s financing arm, Greenpeace Fund Inc.

The jury process in the state court in Mandan, North Dakota, is scheduled to last five weeks.

What are the details of the case?

The transfer of energy based in Dallas claims that Greenpeace tried to delay the construction of the pipeline, defamed the companies behind it and coordinated crimes, vandalism and violence by the protesters of the pipes. The process requires millions of dollars.

The Dakota access pipe has been completed and transports oil since June 2017.

Greenpeace International said it should not be called in the process, because it is distinct from the two US entities, operates outside the US, and its employees have never been in Northern Dakota or have been involved in protests.

Greenpeace US said that the applicants had not been able to hold their requests in the years of protests.

At the beginning of February, a judge denied the Greenpeace motions to throw or limit parts of the case.

What is the Greenpeace position?

The representatives of the environmental organization founded over 50 years ago said that the company only wants to silence critics in the oil industry.

“This process is a critical test of the future of the first amendment, both freedom of expression and peaceful protest, under the Trump administration and not only,” the interim executive director of Greenpeace, Sushma Raman told reporters. “A bad decision in this case could put our rights and freedoms in danger for us all, whether we are journalists, protesters or anyone who wants to engage in public debates.”

The US Greenpeace has helped support “non-violin, direct action” on the safety and scaladation of protests, said the main legal adviser Deep Padmanabha.

The transfer of energy claims that “anyone has engaged in a training at a protest should be responsible for the actions of each person at that protest,” said Padmanabha. “So it is quite easy to see how, if it succeeds, this type of tactic could have a serious cooling effect on anyone who could take into account participation in a protest.”

At the beginning of February, Greenpeace International submitted an anti-timing process in Amsterdam district court, stating that the company acted wrong and should pay costs and damages resulting from its “without merits” disputes.

What does the energy transfer say?

A spokesman for energy transfer said the process is about Greenpeace that does not comply with the law.

“It is not about the free expression, as they try to pretend. We support the rights of all Americans to express their opinions and protest legally. However, when it is not done in accordance with our laws, we have a legal system to deal with it, “said the spokesman for the energy transfer, Vicki Granado, in a statement.

The company submitted a similar file in the federal court in 2017, which a judge rejected in 2019. Shortly, the energy transfer has submitted the process of the state court now directed to the trial.

Energy transfer was launched in 1996 with 20 employees and 200 miles (320 kilometers) of natural gas pipes. Today, the company of 11,000 employees owns and operates over 125,000 miles (200,000 kilometers) of pipes and related facilities.