News provided by
Aug 22, 2017, 13:06 ET
DALLAS, Aug. 22, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (NYSE: ETE) and Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP) today filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota against Greenpeace International, Greenpeace Inc., Greenpeace Fund, Inc., BankTrack, Earth First!, and other organizations and individuals. The Complaint, which is Index number 1:17-cv-00173, alleges that this group of co-conspirators (the “Enterprise”) manufactured and disseminated materially false and misleading information about Energy Transfer and the Dakota Access Pipeline (“DAPL”) for the purpose of fraudulently inducing donations, interfering with pipeline construction activities and damaging Energy Transfer’s critical business and financial relationships. The Complaint also alleges that the Enterprise incited, funded, and facilitated crimes and acts of terrorism to further these objectives. It further alleges claims that these actions violated federal and state racketeering statutes, defamation, and constituted defamation and tortious interference under North Dakota law.
The alleged Enterprise is comprised of rogue environmental groups and militant individuals who employ a pattern of criminal activity and a campaign of misinformation for purposes of increasing donations and advancing their political or business agendas. The Complaint describes the Enterprise’s misinformation campaign that aggressively targeted Energy Transfer’s critical business relationships, including the financing sources for DAPL and Energy Transfer’s other infrastructure projects, by publicly demanding these financial institutions sever ties with Energy Transfer or face crippling boycotts and other illegal attacks.
The Complaint asserts that the attacks were calculated and thoroughly irresponsible, causing enormous harm to people and property along the pipeline’s route. Dakota Access was a legally permitted project that underwent nearly three years of rigorous environmental review and for this reason, Energy Transfer believes it has an obligation to its shareholders, partners, stakeholders and all those negatively impacted by the violence and destruction intentionally incited by the defendants to file this lawsuit.
The DAPL misinformation campaign was predicated on a series of false, alarmist, and sensational claims that plaintiffs:
- encroached on tribal treaty lands;
- desecrated sacred sites of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s (“SRST”) in constructing DAPL;
- constructed DAPL without consulting with and over the rights and objections of SRST; and
- used excessive and illegal force against peaceful protestors.
The Enterprise also claimed that the pipeline will inevitably result in catastrophic oil spills, poisoned water, and massive climate change, while ironically, members of the Enterprise deliberately and maliciously attempted to cut holes in the pipeline with torches which, if successful, would have resulted in significant environmental damage and possible loss of life.
The Enterprise supported these false claims with manufactured evidence, including phony GPS coordinates purporting to show the existence of cultural and religious artifacts along DAPL’s corridor, and sham affidavits submitted in court.
In addition to its misinformation campaign, the Enterprise directly and indirectly funded eco-terrorists on the ground in North Dakota. These groups formed their own outlaw camp among peaceful protestors gathered near Lake Oahe, and exploited the peaceful activities of these groups to further the Enterprise’s corrupt agenda by inducing and directing violent and destructive attacks against law enforcement as well as Plaintiffs’ property and personnel. The Enterprise then flagrantly manipulated these “made-for-TV” events to raise more funds for the Enterprise. These terrorist groups also funded their activities and the Enterprise by using donations to fund a lucrative drug trafficking scheme inside the camps.
Other illegal activities directed at Energy Transfer and its executives that are alleged in the Complaint include persistent attempted cyber-attacks and telephonic and electronic threats to the physical safety of executives.
The Enterprise has conceded that their campaign has inflicted “hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to the Company,” including increased costs of financing resulting from the Enterprise’s interference with the Company’s financial relationships and mitigation costs in response to the Enterprise’s illegal and malicious campaign. These damages, as well as the harm to the Company’s reputation, resulting from the Enterprise’s misinformation campaign, continue to this day. Energy Transfer is seeking compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial as well as treble and punitive damages.
Michael J. Bowe from Kasowitz, Benson & Torres LLP, the Company’s counsel, is continuing the investigation into the Enterprise’s campaign and practices. Anyone with information can provide it on a confidential basis by telephone at 212-506-1777. A website will be established to catalog information and publish progress reports on the case and, when necessary, to set the record straight as the facts warrant.
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (NYSE: ETE) is a master limited partnership that owns the general partner and 100% of the incentive distribution rights (IDRs) of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP) and Sunoco LP (NYSE: SUN). ETE also owns Lake Charles LNG Company. On a consolidated basis, ETE’s family of companies owns and operates a diverse portfolio of natural gas, natural gas liquids, crude oil and refined products assets, as well as retail and wholesale motor fuel operations and LNG terminalling. For more information, visit the Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. website at energytransfer.com.
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (NYSE: ETP) is a master limited partnership that owns and operates one of the largest and most diversified portfolios of energy assets in the United States. Strategically positioned in all of the major U.S. production basins, ETP owns and operates a geographically diverse portfolio of complementary natural gas midstream, intrastate and interstate transportation and storage assets; crude oil, natural gas liquids (NGL) and refined product transportation and terminalling assets; NGL fractionation; and various acquisition and marketing assets. ETP’s general partner is owned by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. (NYSE: ETE). For more information, visit the Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. website at energytransfer.com.
View original content with multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/energy-transfer-files-federal-lawsuit-against-greenpeace-international-greenpeace-inc-greenpeace-fund-inc-banktrack-and-earth-first-for-violation-of-federal-and-state-racketeering-statutes-300507851.html
SOURCE Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
Related Links
HT/OK S.
Nice. 🙂
Finally some push-back. Greenpiece [sic] is a large corporate target well worth going atfer. They have become what they set out to oppose. I got out in 1986 !
I don’t see anything in the article about “racketeering states” mentioned in the title, what’s that about?
The title contains “… racketeering statutes.”
Racketeering statues, you say?
Sorry, my typo. I did find a mention of “… racketeering statutes” on rereading but no more than those two words, I was expecting something about what statutes and how they were allegedly infringing them.
That sounded very enticing.
California perhaps?
It’s probably referring to RICO – Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
@Griff, hopefully the raceteering statues are not of Robert E Lee playing tennis.
Robert Lee isn’t even allowed to announce football games any longer – that is how bad it has gotten for the South.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/espn-pulls-announcer-robert-lee-covering-virginia-football-article-1.3434079
I read this morning that ESPN has pulled Robert Lee from announcing the game at UVA.
This is filed under civil RICO. 18USC1964.
Well, statues have been in the news lately – modern, rent-a-mob, book burners trying to erase history – so maybe that’s a forgivable slip.
Morgan Stanley
Institute for Sustainable Investing Advisory Board
Includes:
Dominic Barton
Jeffrey Hollender, Greenpeace USA
Mindy Lubber, Ceres
Kevin Rudd
And others
http://www.morganstanley.com/what-we-do/institute-for-sustainable-investing/advisory-board
marque2 August 23, 2017 at 4:32 am
“Robert Lee isn’t even allowed to announce football games any longer – that is how bad it has gotten for the South.”
To be correct, they just removed him from the University of Virginia game to another game. But that still doesn’t justify the action. Robert Lee is of Asian decent and was removed because his name was similar to Confederate General Robert E. Lee. I suppose now anyone with the surname of “White” should be removed from announcing any basketball games.
A huge overreaction on ESPN’s part. We live with some very confused people.
Makes about as much sense as people who believe that eliminating any and all references to the civil war will do anything to improve race relations.
Yeah, I guess we should go back and erase all the episodes of “White Shadow”. Now there was a show that tackled racial issues head on with a positive message – it’s been a while since TV had that kind of courage. Can you imagine if someone proposed that premise today?
News today in the UK
Firemen attended a blaze at a farm which destroyed a barn and several tons of hay.
Close to the barn, and at risk of being incinerated were a herd of pigs, including piglets. The firemen saved them.
Some time later, in gratitude for their courage, the farmers wife sent the firemen some sausages, allegedly made from the pigs they had saved from the blaze. The firemen BBQ’d them, scoffed the lot and pronounced them delicious and thanked the farmers wife profusely.
Of course the animal rights people got hold of the story and the firemen are now being condemned. It’s all over the TV, radio and papers.
Like firemen don’t have a hard enough job, they have to deal with these pillocks.
And I watched some YouTube footage today of the Charlotte riots and the Antifa.
Wow! Whilst I don’t like the idea of white supremacists, they have a right like anyone else to express their opinions. But man, those Antifa mob are violent fascists. And allegedly paid for their participation as as well.
“Wow! Whilst I don’t like the idea of white supremacists, they have a right like anyone else to express their opinions. But man, those Antifa mob are violent fascists. And allegedly paid for their participation as as well.”
Like Trump said, there were bad people on both sides.
Antifa is much more dangerous than the N@zis and White Supremacists since these groups are very small and don’t represent anyone, whereas Antifa is an organized effort on the part of the Left and Leftist billionaires to drum up opposition to conservatives and push their radical leftist ideology by any and all means necessary including violence.
The N@zis and the White Supremacists are a bunch of yahoos with no political power and will fade away as soon as the MSM stops promoting them, while the Antifa is well organized and well financed and we definitely haven’t heard the last of them. They are on the attack.
There is a petition on the internet that is aimed at designating Antifa as a terrorist organization. The petition rquires 100,000 signatures to be noticed by the White House, and I think they already have about 160,000 signatures.
Hey, when the fascists come to get ya, it’s not a “sophisticated” activity
Tom in Florida
They are now known as MS-ESPN
Rotor in Florida
Put them in jail and transfer everything they own to the plaintiffs.
Having lost a bunch of money on ETP stock, the lawsuit should include all the stockholder Plaintifs who were impacted by these actions. The lawsuits should add as Defendents the MSM outlets, e.g. Reuters, AP, HuffPost for the FAKE NEWS reporting stirring the negative pot.
About Time!
Glad to hear it!
+1
Perhaps they’ll go with the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ argument again. ‘non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion and at most non-actionable rhetorical hyperbole.’ in GP’s words.
I doubt ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ will get you far in court. It is still libellous.
Greg, are your as idiotic as you appear, or are you just an uneducated troll ?
I think this is a reference to their (Greenpeace) defense in a suit they are defending in Canada brought by a forestry company. It was covered here earlier this year. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-moore-was-right-greenpeace-is-full-of-shit/
No, Greg’s right. Hyperbole is not going to be a defense here. The facts are absolutely correct in that there were clear deceptions, clear damages, and even incitement of terrorist attacks. That last bit could make Greenpeace criminally liable if found true.
The problem will be proving that Greenpeace knew what they were saying was false.
It is difficult to call burned out back hoes and bulldozers ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ and proven interference with advertisers and financial institutions where they have received threats from Greenpeace if they continue funding for the pipeline. The problem with ‘made for TV’ events are that they are now fully public and available as immediate evidence as are all the Internet threats and emails.
The first action after this has been accepted is for DAPL to request a cease and desist injunction on ‘the enterprise’ to prevent any further actions of the type alleged in the court papers. That would spike Greenpeace’s intentions to continue putting grit in the gears for the pipeline and it wouldn’t matter if the case meandered its way through court.
One can only hope that the courts are not yet intimidated by the power of Leftist anti- democratic outrage. At l;east on climate. They have already succumbed on marital law and reverse discrimination measures.
Ian W. I think it is time for legislation against paid protestors (in cash or in kind such as transportation, meals, etc.).
If people want to exercise their rights to assemble and protest fine. But paid thugs who assemble, protest, and riot should be seen as professionals involved in collusion and paid crimes.
@Larwence, while I agree, I think the counter will be the assertion that these people are sincere but to poor to fund their own protest.
I’m with Leonard Lane as far as paid protesters are concerned and their “leaders” as well. I hope this suit also includes the celebrities who were bloviating as well. Hopefully hit them where it hurts financially.
This is a case that will take at least three years to go through the motions and reach some end-verdict. For the accused, if the accusation is proven true….the judge could go after every single penny of asset within the organizations to settle the situation and then tag future incoming funds for the full damages. For some of these groups, I think it’s the beginning of the end. They will have to shut down….start fresh, and create a whole new brand-name.
One can only hope.
Three years appears overly optimistic. Mann v. Steyn is over six years with no verdict in sight. How long for appeals?
This is in N. Dakota, not Wash. D.C. Could speed things up.
Which shouldn’t long at all–just trademark a new name or get an existing that isn’t being used much, or merge with another group. Then discreetly publicize the overlap with the previous situation through their or sympathizers mailing lists. Losing the money would hurt, but would add urgency to their appeals for replacement funds from both the big hitters and the rank and file.
Perhaps some legal eagle could comment on whether or how this could work.
One assumes (hopes) the corporate lawyers know how to vastly increase Greenpeace’s legal expenses…
Got to love the characters at Earth First:
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” -John Davis, Earth First!
“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically.” -Judi Bari, Earth First
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.” -John Davis
“The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.” -Christopher Manes, Earth First!
Oh no. I killed over 100 slugs yesterday.
Better hand yourself in:
Man walks into the police station.
Cop: Good morning sir, how can I help?
Man: I’ve come to hand myself in. I killed some slugs yesterday.
Cop: Oh?
Man: This guy from Earth First said humans had the same value as slugs.
Cop: That’s weird. A slug handed himself in yesterday admitting that he’d killed a lettuce.
OK i own up
I’m guilty also …. cleared out a wasps nest that was over my front door
I paid my local council’s ‘contract killer’ to get rid of (roof) wasps that kept stalking my wife, will plead guilty to crime of passion with the diminished responsibility.
I took some antibiotics.
Does that make me a murderer?
So if I killed a hundred people today I’m no worse than Phillip! I don’t have any plans but I sure have a list!
One really wonders why these people do not lead by example and remove themselves from the planet.
Because they are hypocrites.
Misanthropes who don’t commit suicide aren’t misanthropes they are bigots. According to them, their farts don’t stink. Thanks to Trey Parker and Matt stone we know they are creating a great cloud of “smug” to blanket the earth.
I’m just guessing here, but I believe it is mentally impossible for narcissists to kill themselves due to all of the fake self-love trophy giving instilled from the cradle telling them their p00p doesn’t stink and the world revolves around them.
Humophobic imbeciles. The stench of guilt on them is oppressive. What have they done in their lives to feel so useless and to want to drag the rest of us down with them.
“Humophobic? That isn’t even a word but I agree with you!” (apologies to Mr. Krabs)
I believe the term is “misanthropic”.
andrewpattullo
You mean they don’t like Hummus?
Appalling, shoot them.
🙂
Whatever useless things they’ve done in their lives, it was better than what they’re doing now.
It is no surprise that Greenpeace is at the heart of this mass corruption and illegality.
Greenfleece?
Greenpeace is tough in boarding Japanese boats, US boats, and properties. But when French spies blew up the Rainbow Warrior ship in a New Zealand harbor they knew they were against a country that wouldn’t back down–so they didn’t do much to the French since that time.
As an ex member of Greenpeace (& FOE) I applaud this move, it should have been done years ago.
They are now political thugs who use lies & extortion… leading well meaning (nice but dim) sheeple.
Sheeple. Love it.
I doubt you were a “member” of GP. Probably a “subscriber” like was. Members are the ones getting in the way of whaling ships and abseiling off bridges.
But yes, good move, long over due.
I disagree that they are nice but misguided, they are vicious little vermin who love to hate…they are drawn together as though hate had mass and the more hate getting about the more they are drawn to it. People like this have been responsible for the worst atrocities in world history. Sheeple are the ordinary fence sitting types who just go with the flow. The Fascist neuvo-greeny, or watermellon is a socialist. Look at Patrick Moore’s views about these people for another take on 1saveenergys opinion.
I have always been a P. Moore fan…still am.
But as we learned last week, if you hate but for a “good cause” as in a cause leftists celebrate, you can beat people up wantonly and get excused. Just claim your opponent is a fascist, whether true or not.
Bill Snape
I like that description.
A relation of Severus perhaps?
Most “sheeple” don’t even have the courage to climb up on the fence. They just keep their noses down in the grass and pretend not to see.
Well. They have to do *something* with their ever-useful philosophy/womens studies/marine studies majors!
Agree with Marque, but also wonder about the designation of “White Supremacist” “Neo-Nazi” etc, are these self-identification by the whites in this protest or the media’s disingenuous designation?
Two cases come to mind:
1) In the 1990’s Greenpeace successfully convinced Shell to decommission on land the Brent Spar oil floating storage facility, rather than dispose thereof at great depth in the ocean. It later transpired that Greenpeace had used fraudulent figures in denouncing the original plan. http://www.shell.co.uk/sustainability/decommissioning/brent-spar-dossier.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Spar
Even Wikipedia shows that Greenpeace admitted that the figures they used were wrong (see the part sub-titled “aftermath”).
2) Steven Donziger a US lawyer (linked to the same firm now defending Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s IT man Imran Awan), had a $18 Billion lawsuit against Chevron, later reduced to $9 B, related to pollution in Ecuador, allegedly caused by Texaco, a company that Chevron then took over. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-chevron-idUSKBN19A1V4
It became obvious that Donziger had schooled witnesses in what to say, allegedly bribed the judge, convinced the environmental firm to bodge their data etc. https://www.chevron.com/ecuador/
Also, Chevron allege that the pollution was really caused by the National Ecuadorian oil company after Texaco had signed off and exited the permit.
The company’s claim that the water in the submarine trough was basically static was BS too ( fraudulent if you prefer that word ) . GP were right to challenge dumping though as usual exaggerated the risk.
The company’s claim that the water in the submarine trough was basically static was BS too ( f-raudulent if you prefer that word ) . GP were right to challenge dumping though as usual exaggerated the risk.
This is the type of action I used to instigate and help manage corporately in the 1970-80s. It slowed the interference of those dissident groups in our legitimate activities. It was worth a lot of money to squelch them. If corporate managers reading this ask if such actions are worth the effort, I give a strong yes. If you think your managers ought to get active, push them, cajole them, encourage them. The political climate for this has not been better in the USA in particular, for many years.
The power of combined corporations in a field is seldom tested, but if demonstrated, it would be considerable and greater by far than the power of these peple like greenpeace, lazy donation-paid layabouts calling themselves saviours. Geoff
Let’s not forget the Resolute court case too. I hope Greenpeace are utterly and totally destroyed by these legal actions.
+ 100
Hopefully this will lead to criminal proceedings – and not before time (RICO etc).
I seem to recall that Greenpeace was declared a criminal and terrorist organisation in India ?
I love the wording. Sounds just about right. Keep it up!
Greenpiece has been bullying companies for decades, looks like one has decided the best way to deal with a bully is to hit him so hard his teeth hit yesterdays breakfast.
Best part is, Greenpiece has now made so many corporate enemies, as few are likely to sink the boot in as Greenpiece goes down.
Wouldn’t have happened in Putinland. ND is sufficiently north for really cold prison cells in winter.
But it did… Greenpeace protested Russian oil, ship seized, Russians lost court case
http://gcaptain.com/russia-told-to-pay-dutch-6-million-over-greenpeace-arctic-sunrise-seizure/
And Putin gives a f***?
Moscow (AFP) – Russia on Thursday dismissed an international court ruling it must pay the Netherlands 5.4 million euros ($6.25 million) for the 2013 seizure of Greenpeace’s Arctic Sunrise ship.
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague on Tuesday ordered Moscow to pay damages over the incident, which saw 30 activists and journalists detained in an armed raid by Russian security officials after a protest against oil drilling.
“Russia did not take part in the proceedings because it took the view and still does that the Arbitration Court does not have jurisdiction in this case,” foreign ministry spokesman Artyom Kozhin said in a statement.
Kozhin complained that the verdict did not take into account that Greenpeace activists “created a direct threat to the safety of an oil rig” and argued Russia took lawful measures to stop dangerous unlawful behaviour.
…. no problem, Putin will pay 6 million fine and charge the Dutch 12 million extra for supplying them with the Russian gas. Vladimir the Great is nobody’s fool.
That article and the Dutch government was ridiculous. The Russians are not allowed to “unlawfully” board a GP ship, after its members used the ship to unlawfully board a Russian vessel – and do damage to it? Seems like Russia was in full right to capture people committing a crime. That is what happens when left wing idiots become judges and rule based on emotion rather than law.
You don’t know much about maritime law Griff.
I don’t Patrick.
I’m merely pointing out that Greenpeace does take action in Russia and Putin’s govt takes notice/action
I put in the bit about losing the court case because I’m not particularly fond of Putin’s govt….
Sounds like a European court inadvertently told Russia to sink the pirate vessel next time! Boarding another vessel and damaging it is piracy and the last time I looked, the death penalty is still in place for that crime.
Not the result they were looking for I am sure.
Interestingly, Greenpeace seem to have abandoned their campaign to stop the Russians from drilling in the Arctic, and are now trying it on with the Norwegian firm Statoil instead. The Dutch court award is merely a consolation prize which will never be paid.
Greenpeace has no snowball’s chance in hell with Putin’s Russia. Also, I think they don’t want to tak that match again because it made Greenpeace look weak.
They’ll rather choose soft goals to get favourable publicity and collect money, which is their first goal everywhere.
Many of my buddies are of opinion Putin could have been harsher for everyone’s good but sadly she let the activist-terrorists to leave Russia.
Griff,
just as a matter of interest, what government are you fond of?
Griff you have got him shaking in his boots
?w=640
Griff was fine with the Russian’s take on law and order when they were Communist.
It didn’t. This protest took place in international waters.
Interesting, Graemethecat, that Norway funds it’s generous social welfare programs by their state-owned oil, so if they can’t develop more supply, what will happen?
The passionate champion of the rights of small island states for protection from global ‘warming’ and the sea level ‘rise’, apparently the ‘hero’ of Paris climate agreement, Tony De Brum dies age 72.
Despite I haven’t heard of the gentleman before, it is a shame he didn’t live long enough to see all the relentless propaganda eventually unravelling, nevertheless may he rest in peace.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41014093
Did he drown standing still in a rising tide? I know. Bad taste.
Good luck with the law suit!
It is about time these activists were brought to pay for their crimes.
Activity can look coordinated without actually being an organized plot. For instance, a riot can break out without being planned. As another example, an oligopoly can look like price fixing. Really, it’s just how a small number of rational competitors will act.
My question for the lawyers out there is this: Is it necessary to prove that the members of “the enterprise” actually colluded with each other?
OMG commiebob you are still defending their actions. I am sure the lawyers involved are capable and don’t need help. Give it up – people are sick and tired of intimidation and groups like this Crowd of rogues running over everyone and getting away with it. They sure showed their hoax face during the Resolute trial with their only defense being ‘we were just joking…….we have no facts to present’. After all the cost, disruptions and reputation smearing they have costs companies and industry over the years this is way past due. I only hope the indigenous people file the next lawsuit. Loving every minute of this. I can only say ‘There really is a God”.
What would the ‘indigenous people’ file lawsuit over? They were willing accomplices.
Nope. I’m actually curious about the process.
The article doesn’t mention RICO but it sounds like that’s what it’s talking about. Is that a fair assumption?
Is it necessary to prove a conspiracy to invoke RICO?
What’s necessary to prove that there was a conspiracy?
We have a few lawyers who visit the site. I am hoping one of those can enlighten me.
May not have to prove they colluded.
There are a whole bunch of “environmental” groups formed in Oregon/Washington to protect the Columbia Gorge. Anytime there was something proposed these groups would all weigh in against the proposal publically and in briefs filed in court to stop the proposed action. Public perception is these groups are formed independently of each other by concerned residents of the gorge. Investigative reporting done several years ago showed that the board members making up each group were pretty much all the same people with some groups not having any members other than these board members.
In other words, these groups are mostly shell organizations developed by just a few people. I can see several advantages for this practice and it’s likely common practice amongst activists.
This is a VERY BIG DEAL. The case is being tried in North Dakota.. far from bluer than blue states (although not as red as can be) which means it should be a fair trail and fairly judged. ETE has the resources to carry this through and Greenpeace is going to have to lawyer up which will divert funds away from “other” projects.
If RICO prevails on this, it will be a bellwether ruling severely restricting illegal actions by these groups in the future.
What I find hilarious about this is the RICO statutes were going to be used against climate deniers by the blue state Attorney General’s. Turn about is fair play, doesn’t one think?
When many of the protestors were arrested, the charges were uniformly for severe crimes (felonies or serious misdemeanors).
When asked about this, one ND official said the plan was to offer plea bargains to arrestees in exchange for information regarding who was paying them. (There were numerous postings on Craigslist offerring round trip airfare, sign on bonus, and hourly wage to people willing to join the protest).
If all this is true, Greenpiece and their ilk could be very vulnerable.
This is wonderful news. It’s about time that somebody went after the Greenpeace slimeballs.
This is great news, long overdue!
To avoid having to read the MSM spin on the suit, you can read it yourself in full here:
https://storage.googleapis.com/media.mwcradio.com/mimesis/2017-08/22/Energy_Transfer_Parters_lawsuit.pdf
On first glance some of the claims hold up, e.g destroying heavy equipment, cutting into the pipeline with blowtorches, even parts of the pipeline that were carrying crude at the time (p.134).
The eco-terrorists involved even publicly admitted this, calling their arson and destruction “peaceful” – http://www.mississippistand.com. I’m not sure they’d use the same definitions if I burned down a solar farm in protest.
This bit is good
“Greenpeace’s most senior leaders have admitted that their goal is not to present accurate facts, but to “emotionalize” issues and thereby “pressure” (i.e. manipulate) their donor audiences into parting with their money. When caught red-handed spreading patently false misinformation, Greenpeace has conceded that to “emotionalize” targeted donors and other victims, it uses what it calls internally, “ALARMIST ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOIDS,” that it intentionally and expressly markets to its donors as “facts” based on “research,” and “science.””
Mark Tinsley
I don’t suppose we’ll see the Guardian reporting that bit.
However, today, even they had to report that the state of Britain’s economy is in pretty good shape despite Brexit. But not without some little scaremongering asides.
The Comment Is Free section was awash with remainers condemning them for their inaccurate, biased, distorted journalism “How dare you report this, you’re supposed to be on our side!!!!!”.
Hilarious, it did make me laugh.
HotScot
Indeed, The Guardian has also spent over a year pushing the lie that the NHS is also on the verge of collapse due to “EU Nurses leaving in droves”.
It’s been repeatedly pointed out to them that the NHS’s own staffing figures show EU Nurses are higher in number & the same % of staff as before Brexit. They don’t care, and neither do most of the people at CiF
I wish them all success they need, and they will need a lot of it…
Take Greenpeace: in our experience, Greenpeace International doesn’t exist (!), it was officially abandoned many years ago. It is a ghost organisation (but still holds the name and firmly controls the organisation).
If they have an action somewhere, the activists climbing in trees, on tanks, ships,… are not members of Greenpeace, but hired for that purpose. The spokes(wo)man is from a local Greenpeace “name licensed” organisation, but not responsible for the action. If they use their ships: these belong to an independent company, the captain to another, the crew again another. Of course all working for Greenpeace, but under different umbrellas, without any direct connection…
Even if the judge is smart and lumps that juridicial knot together as one organisation, it is nightmare to have any financial compensation, as the Norwegian whalers did experience: it took them over a year to find out where Greenpeace’s money was to pay for the damage on their ships, as ordered by the judge…
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Now that does seem to constitute racketeering.
Sounds like a RICO claim. Way back in the 1970s I was involved in defending one of these, and I tell you that it is one of the worst constructed statutes I have ever seen. You can make it fit almost any fact situation with multiple actors. I await the trial with bated breath. (As in abated, not baitied).
It has been brought under RICO, from the suit
“This action arises under The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968, and state statutes and common law”
Bless them!
I fervently hope ETE/ETP win and bankrupt GreenFleece.
How can an average citizen help this effort?
Excellent. I wish the plaintiffs great success.
What is particularly pointed is the defense Greenpeace used in the Canadian part of the Resolute case, that they had no obligation to use true claims of harm, and that everyone should have known they were lying.
The old ‘we use hyperbole, so we can’t be taken literally’ defense.
Perhaps they should be required to put that messaging in a visibly prominent spot on all their fliers, ads, TV spots.
You know, like the tobacco industry.
Sounds fair to me.
The Canadian case was for defamation, therefore the “intent” of the message in addition to its content was relevant. This case is different as the accusations are of direct damage (destruction of property and extortion by threatening to boycott investors). That defence is unlikely to be successful in this case.
How does one defend against defamation by saying they lied?
Please.please let this lawsuit be successful.
Jail for the organisers and punitive damages for Greenp!ss and its co-conspirators..
I genuinely hope this starts a trend. I hope every two-bit company screwed by environmentalists, in every target industry, decides to take a bite.
I’ll order more popcorn. 😀
It is about time that American companies begin to fight back against these criminal eco-nuts. I wish them all the success in thew world. Resolute (international forestry group) also has an ongoing suit against Greenpeace — civil suit in Canada and a similar RICO-based suit in the US.
The attorneys for Energy Transfer, Kasowitz, Benson & Torres, are led by Marc Kasowitz, who has represented the current President, Donald Trump, in litigation. I would expect that the plaintiffs will make this litigation very painful for the defendants.
Energy Transfer may have a very good case as they have suffered large losses due to provable lies used by these organizations to raise money. What a nice world it would be without Green Peace!
Only comment I’ll make at this point is to substitute “disinformation” for “misinformation” in the above article.
Why?
Misinformation can be innocent.
I notice that when it comes to building pipelines, various organizations, as often as not led by native groups, oppose them with all their might. (For now I will leave aside whether the native groups are protesting on their own or being paid by one of Soros’s organizations to do so.) But as soon as a forest fire threatens their remote bush community, the fossil-fuel-powered evacuation aircraft just cannot get there soon enough. Where I come from, we used to call that hypocrisy…
How about this, Native Americans: we won’t build pipelines through your lands, but we won’t send any fossil-fuel powered rescue vehicles to save you ever again either. Or to bring you supplies of any type for that matter. Fair deal?