|
The
jury will deliberate after the closing arguments and jury
instructions. Nine jurors and two alternates have heard the
case.
North Dakota District Court Judge James Gion told the jury last
month when the trial began, “You are the judges of all questions
of fact in this case,” and to “base your verdict on the
evidence.”
Dallas-based Energy Transfer and its subsidiary Dakota Access
alleged defamation, trespass, nuisance and other offenses by
Netherlands-based Greenpeace International, its American branch
Greenpeace USA, and funding arm Greenpeace Fund Inc. The
pipeline company is seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in
damages.
The lawsuit stems from protests in 2016 and 2017 of the
controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and its Missouri River
crossing upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's
reservation. The tribe for years has opposed the pipeline as a
risk to its water supply. The pipeline has transported oil since
mid-2017.
Trey Cox, an attorney for the pipeline company, previously said
Greenpeace “planned, organized and funded a game plan to stop
construction” of the pipeline, “whatever the cost.”
Cox also alleged Greenpeace paid outsiders to come into the area
to protest, sent blockade supplies, organized or led protester
trainings, passed “critical intel” to the protesters and told
untrue statements to stop the line from being built.
He said a letter signed by leaders of Greenpeace International
and Greenpeace USA and sent to Energy Transfer's banks contained
an allegedly defamatory statement that the company desecrated
burial grounds and culturally important sites during
construction.
Greenpeace's “deceptive narrative scared off lenders” and the
company lost half its banks, Cox said.
Attorneys for the Greenpeace entities denied the allegations,
saying there is no evidence, they had little or no involvement
with the protests and the letter was signed by hundreds of
organizations from dozens of countries, with no financial
institution to testify the organization received, read or was
influenced by the letter.
Greenpeace representatives have said the lawsuit is an example
of corporations abusing the legal system to go after critics and
is a critical test of free speech and protest rights. An Energy
Transfer spokesperson said the case is about Greenpeace not
following the law, not free speech.
All contents © copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved
|
|
