The closure of arguments will begin on Monday in a pipeline’s lawsuit against Greenpeace, a case that, according to the group for environmental advocacy, could have consequences for free speech and protest rights and the future of the organization.
The jury will deliberate to the closing arguments and jury instructions. Nine jurors and two alternatives heard the matter.
Judge James Gion, Judge of North Dakota, told the jury last month when the hearing began: “You are the judges of all factual questions in this case” and “base your judgment on the evidence”.
Energy transfer in Dallas and its subsidiary Dakota Access alleged slander, offense, nuisance and other offenses by Greenpeace International, the US branch Greenpeace USA, and the financing of poor Greenpeace Fund Inc. The pipeline is looking for hundreds of millions of dollars’ damages.
The lawsuit stems from protests in 2016 and 2017 of the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline and its Missouri River crossing upstream from the reservation of the standing Rock Sioux tribe. The tribe has been opposed to the pipeline for years as a risk of its water supply. The pipeline has transported oil since mid -2017.
Pipeline Company lawyer Trey Cox previously said Greenpeace “planned, organized and funded a game plan to stop the construction” of the pipeline, “whatever the costs.”
Cox also claimed that Greenpeace paid outsiders to get into the area to protest, send blocking supplies, train organized or guided protesters, passed on the protesters’ critical Intel and told false statements to stop the line from being built.
He said a letter signed by Greenpeace International and Greenpeace USA leaders and sent to the banks of Energy Transfer contained an alleged defamatory statement that the company cemetery and culturally important sites defiled during the construction.
Greenpeace’s “misleading narrative scared borrowers” and the company lost half of its banks, Cox said.
Attorneys from the Greenpeace entities denied the allegations, saying that there was no evidence, that they had little or no involvement in the protests, and the letter was signed by hundreds of organizations from dozens of countries, with no financial institution to testify or influenced by the letter.
Greenpeace representatives said the lawsuit is an example of corporations abusing the legal system to follow critics and is a critical test for free speech and protest rights. A spokesperson for energy transfer said the case is about Greenpeace who does not follow the law, not free speech.
