h/t ResourceGuy – Greenpeace appears to think European courts have pre-eminence over US courts, even for events which happened in the USA.
Greenpeace Asks a Dutch Court to Reverse an American Verdict
The group wants to use European law as a shield to disrupt American infrastructure projects.
By Michael Toth
Dec. 5, 2025 at 5:27 pm ETA North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. …
… During the monthslong standoff, reports spread of protesters shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers.
… Kelcy Warren, then Energy Transfer’s CEO, didn’t take those losses sitting down. “What they did to us is wrong,” he said in 2017 of the environmental groups behind the demonstrations, “and they’re going to pay for it.”
…
Greenpeace had a Plan B, however. On the eve of the trial, Greenpeace International filed a new lawsuit with the District Court of Amsterdam, where the group is based. The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.
Read more: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/greenpeace-asks-a-dutch-court-to-reverse-an-american-verdict-ec50b1e8?st=6ruYyM
…
If Greenpeace stood by the roadside and waved a few banners I would have wholeheartedly supported their right to do so. But “… shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers …” goes way beyond what I would consider to be legitimate protest.
Greenpeace USA doesn’t appear have enough assets to cover this fine (approx. $4.8 million US net assets in 2023 according to ProPublica), so perhaps they are trying to cut their losses? Sacrifice the US branch, but shield the main parent organisation in the Netherlands from a fine which could devastate their finances? According to 2024 accounts, Greenpeace International has approx €90 million in assets.
Any attempt to shield European organisations by overruling US court judgments for events which occurred in the USA could further damage trans-Atlantic relations. Relations are particularly strained right now, thanks to an EU attempt to $210 million fine against x / twitter, over a dispute regarding the blue verified tick, not censoring free speech the way the EU wants, and not providing EU “researchers” with full access to internal X company secrets.
Obviously the USA has plenty of levers which can be pulled to retaliate against arrogant EU attempts to usurp the judgements of US courts and use in my opinion questionable tactics to attack the success of US tech companies.
What can I say – watch this space.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dutchman here. It is understandable because The Netherlands have turned into a dikastocracy. Society is run by judges ands their specific interpretation of the law. The majority of judges are, by their own admission leftists. They have all bought into the big lies of our time: climate, immigration, nitrogen. gender, woke, etc.
Then there’s another specific Dutch problem. If you claim to represent the interests of others, you are taken at face value to be a party before the courts. You do not need proof of standing.
Because of this ALL building in The Netherlands is blocked or severely delayed by the actions of ONE man. His name is Johan Vollenbroek and he is a ONE man ngo.
Google his picture and tell me cliché’s don’t exist.
I’ve heard of judge-shopping before but this is ridiculous.
A more smug appearance is seldom seen. I thought at first he was some kin of King Charles of the UK.
“… big lies of our time: … nitrogen …”
What’s the nitrogen lie? I really don’t know, or maybe it’s called something else where I am.
Probably related to fertilizer and runoff into rivers and lakes and the ocean.
They are confiscating farms because farmers are using fertiliser and (they claim) some of it washes into canals.
Thanks for info. I was familiar with the idea “algae bloom” now I have to go find out how that got Nitrogen on the naughty list.
It’s fertilizer, meant to help things grow, including algae.
In Europe, new nature reserves have been defined following the Natura 2000 regulation. In the Netherlands hundreds of postage stamp nature reserves were created since 2000, with the direct result that old farmland is now neighbouring nature reserves. These nature reserves are all home to species that are competing with grasses which benefit from fertilser. Which means that just a goosedropping allready exceeds the fertiliser limit of the nature reserves. It has been calculated that even removing all dutch farmland wont stop the fertilisation of these nature reserves. Mr Vollenbroek is sueing dutch farmers, and he has european law on his side..
Looks like a dyke.
A government run by diks??
“[Dutch judges] have all bought into the big lies of our time: climate, immigration, nitrogen. gender, woke, etc.”
Not much surprised to read this.
Whenever I go on YouTube and enter a search for “climate protests” on occasion, many of the most recent video entries I noticed were from the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe. It tells me climate alarmism is still very much alive and well there.
Don’t see much from the U.S. anymore. In the UK, most of the videos seem to be from Extinction Rebellion and about immigration and opposition to the new law that makes the Palestine Action group a terrorist organization.
And then of course there were the videos about Greta you-know-who and her ilk dumping green dye into the Grand Canal in Venice. The stupid, it burns.
As a former Dutchman, I well remember how happy the Dutch were to find natural gas in Groningen. There was enough for Dutch needs and for export. The natural gas was a boon to the economy for many decades.
Then outfits like Greenidiots came along and wanted to ban the gas and all other fossil fuels, in other words go back to the wood and Stone Age.
Rutte, the current head of NATO, was a a big booster, until he was voted out.
Green bull manure has been outlawed as a terrorist organization in the US, and would not get a hearing in a U.S. Court, in fact, it likely would be arrested, so they are pleading their BS case in a Dutch Court.
No paying much attention to Dutch politics but I thought it elected a conservative premier or president not long ago.
They are clucking like a chicken little laying an egg boc boc boc …( Bunch Of Crap )
😉
Where’s Super Chicken when you need him?
Loved that when I was a kid. And then there is:
“There’s no need to fear! Underdog is here!”
… and…
“You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred.”
Fond memories. Favorite quotes. All good.
Same. Grew up watching these in the 60s. The underdog theme song is epic!
Well at least we can dry up green peace funds with more legal expenses and plainly show hapless donors where their money goes.
Said hapless donors want to be hapless and uninformed.
Don’t have any time for Greenpeace, but if they want to hide behind the EU then the EU can take its lumps (more than they are now I assume) if they protect that bunch.
Why a Dutch court?
“where the group is based”
I wonder how many civilians knew Greenpeace was Dutch.
It would be nice if I could land in a foreign airport and claim USA rights. I’d fly into [country] and tell the military dictator he’s a [insult].
When foreign based – you get USAID funds.
And about the court trick.
Americans should be fine with that.
” US courts can recognize a foreign judgement without personal jurisdiction” Cargill -Bashchovsky feb. 25, where an English judgement was recognized in,where else,
New York
So,
“… shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers …”
What is unfortunate is that those injured by these activities cannot respond with physical punishment on the ‘Peas scum. Bruises and contusions have a larger discouraging effect than some penny-ante fine that Daddy pays for. Nothing will get their attention more emphatically than a steel-toed boot where it hurts.
Double Dutch, what else would anyone expect?
Greenpeace appears to be losing a limb.
I’ve never thought much of Greenpeace, I think even less of them now.
Poor Greenpeace, it couldn’t happen to a nicer organization. Seems they’re in the wrong business these days when it comes to raking in the cash. Contrast that with the former head of their Greenpeace USA arm, who got a $425,000 pay raise from 2022 to 2023, according to the last public available IRS form that mentions his mystery LLC company. I had to update my ongoing count this evening of the total amount of cash that’s flowed into his outfit, he’s now amassed just over $30 million after leaving Greenpeace.
Greenpeace lost the plot ages ago…
When Patrick Moore left.
They have zero jurisdiction. End of story.
Now, ask them if they have jurisdiction. I would be willing to bet a fried egg they say the do.
And yet they don’t.
Story tip!
Susan Crockford has a new post on Polar Bear Science.
Polar bears and Arctic sea ice status
Positive news on the Arctic front as far as polar bears are concerned so far this year, with no reports of dead or dying bears, or of horrific attacks on humans that I’ve heard about. Not much to talk about but here’s what I’ve found.
https://polarbearscience.com/2025/12/07/polar-bears-and-arctic-sea-ice-status/
The whole “Polar bears are endangered due to CAGW” has been a giant scam from the very beginning.
Yes the polar bears don’t seem to have trouble surviving in temperate zone zoos.
“A bit less brutally frigid” is no threat to polar bears whatsoever.
The no-fly and no-entry list gets longer all the time. Don’t forget to put the lawyers on them too.
The Marxists have discovered if you control the courts you control the country. In this case they picked the wrong country.
The courts were the very first thing the Nazis took over absolute control in the early 1930s. The Jacobins pioneered this in the early 1790s as a method of executing their political enemies – Les Girondins.
As has been said on this site numerous times recently, the climate alarmists, realizing their hysteria is being either laughed at or ignored completely, are now resorting to even more asinine efforts to turn the tide in their favor. Except that tide has swamped them and their goofy proposals long ago. Can anyone imagine the uproar if some American group tried to convince some European high court to lift its country’s ban on fossil fuel extraction? We wouldn’t hear the end of it , so how is Greenpeace’s proposal any different?
Collecting cross-border judgements is complicated; there is no single treaty framework which covers all cases. I suspect there is a lot of latitude for a Dutch court to decline enforcement.
For example in the legal battle between Steven Donziger and Chevron, after Donziger obtained a very large judgement against Chevron in Ecuador for pollution, Chevron won a RICO suit against Donziger in the US on the basis the judgement was obtained by fraud, bribery and racketeering operations. As a result the US court barred enforcement of the Ecuador judgement in the US. I believe Chevron later obtained the same protection in EU courts.
That being said, if the Dutch court blocks attachment of Greenpeace assets there, one might expect retaliatory action by the US State Department on pending and future EU actions to collect against US assets, such as the €120 million fine just imposed on X (a.k.a. Twitter) for violations of the EU “Digital Services Act”, which has many provisions with no equivalent in US law.
Additionally, the IRS can revoke 501(c)(3) status for a charitable organization which is:
Promoting, advocating or providing aid to commit trespass and vandalism clearly fall outside activities which qualify for tax-exempt status. I’m sure the vast bulk of Greenpeace’s income derives from US sources; revoking 501(c)(3) status would put a big dent in that. I’m also sure that cutting off the massive federal slush-fund grants to left-wing organizations has already hit Greenpeace. It would be interesting to compare their 2024 and 2025 annual reports, and probably 2026 even more so.
It’s ironic that Greenpeace are claiming the suit is an attempt to silence them in the face of evidence they committed disruption and sabotage, which are not protected forms of protest. It’s even more ironic as EU nations impose increasingly strict limitations on what their own citizens can say in online forums.
Imagine if you will a campaign by a group called “Genesis 1:27” [ look it up ] to disrupt and sabotage construction of a medical facility devoted to “gender affirming care” for children. Do you think any so-called human rights activists would champion their cause and demand exemption from civil and criminal process?
“It’s even more ironic as EU nations impose increasingly strict limitations on what their own citizens can say in online forums.”
But only when the online speech is of a Conservative bent. If you talk bad about “Palestinians”, to jail with you. But if you talk bad about Christians, It’s hear no evil time.
Actually, after some further research I find that “Greenpeace, Inc.” is a 501(c)(4) organization, which is tax-exempt but donations are not deductible for the donor. 501(c)(4) organizations are allowed to engage in political advocacy and lobbying activities that 501(c)(3) organizations cannot. 501(c)(4) status can be revoked on substantially the same grounds, which would make donations taxable as income to the organization. I suspect it would also make getting foundation and government grants considerably more difficult.
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
This is the left’s option of last resort- lawfare. Now lawfare goes international.
… During the monthslong standoff, reports spread of protesters shackling themselves to equipment, blow-torching parts of the pipeline, and hurling feces and burning logs at workers.
A few years ago- when the state of Wokeachusetts started a forestry project on state land- it was a light thinning in a mature stand (not old growth)- the wackos chained themselves to the logging machinery- claiming it was a clearcut. The state gets intimidated by this sort of thing so over the years, they do less and less of such projects- now cutting maybe 5% of growth, all to save the planet, I presume. This drastic cutback of such projects is a huge economic loss to the state, especially all the blue collar workers- loggers, truckers, mill workers, foresters, etc. But the state doesn’t mind if you clearcut 50 acres of forest on the side of a mountain to install a solar “farm”.
“goes way beyond what I would consider to be legitimate protest”
Assault, destruction of property, violence are not covered by the Constitution, 1st Amendment.
Directive (EU) 2024/1069:
“Safeguards journalists, human rights defenders, NGOs, academics, and others engaging in public debate.”
Assault, destruction of property, violence are not “public debate.”
I wonder if Energy Transfer can countersue…
Doesn’t the Declaration of Independence say something about foreign princes having no sway over the lands and peoples of the United States? Just send the court a copy of that document with the accompanying message to stick their ‘judgement’ where the sun don’t shine.