Attorneys for the pipeline firm Power Switch and Greenpeace fired their opening salvos in a North Dakota courtroom Wednesday morning in a civil trial that would bankrupt the storied environmental group.
The swimsuit revolves across the function Greenpeace performed in huge protests towards building of the Dakota Entry Pipeline almost a decade in the past. The pipeline, which carries crude oil from North Dakota throughout a number of states to a switch level in Illinois, was delayed for months in 2016 and 2017 amid lawsuits and protests.
The trial commenced on Wednesday with opening arguments in a quiet county courthouse in Mandan, N.D. Greenpeace says Power Switch, which constructed the Dakota Entry Pipeline, is in search of $300 million in damages.
Power Switch, one of many largest pipeline corporations within the nation, accused Greenpeace of inciting unrest that price it hundreds of thousands of {dollars} in misplaced financing, building delays, and safety and public-relations bills. Trey Cox, its lead lawyer, instructed the nine-person jury that his workforce would show that Greenpeace had “deliberate, organized and funded” illegal protests. He referred to as the trial a “day of reckoning.”
Everett Jack Jr., the lead lawyer for Greenpeace, gave an in depth timeline to rebut facets of that account, saying Greenpeace performed a minor function within the demonstrations, which drew an estimated 100,000 individuals to the agricultural space.
The protests originated with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which argued {that a} portion of the pipeline beneath Lake Oahe, on federal land close to its reservation, endangered the water provide and sacred websites on its ancestral territory. The tribe started protesting in spring 2016 and filed lawsuits aimed toward stopping the pipeline’s operations. The Dakota Entry Pipeline has been working since 2017, although remaining approval is pending.
Conflicts between protesters, legislation enforcement and personal safety forces started in August 2016, the lawyer for Greenpeace mentioned, and the numbers of demonstrators swelled. Mr. Jack mentioned the protests had already escalated into harmful confrontations earlier than Greenpeace was concerned.
He pointed to Sept. 3, 2016, when he mentioned personal safety launched canines on individuals protesting that Power Switch was bulldozing in an space the place a tribal chief had asserted there have been cultural artifacts. It was a confrontation that drew media consideration and brought about extra individuals to hitch the protests, however on the time nobody from Greenpeace had arrived there, Mr. Jack mentioned.
He mentioned two workers members had arrived two days after that confrontation, with a purpose to deliver a photo voltaic truck to offer electrical energy. Mr. Jack mentioned Greenpeace was dedicated to nonviolence and acquired concerned to not incite unrest, however fairly to assist “de-escalate” and supply help like tents and coaching. He instructed the jury there was no proof to help the competition that Greenpeace was chargeable for the protests.
In his opening arguments for Power Switch, Mr. Cox cited Greenpeace’s inner emails and publications, together with a letter to worldwide lenders signed by Greenpeace and different teams. That letter, written by BankTrack, a Dutch group that works on environmental causes, referred to as on Power Switch’s lenders to halt loans for the Dakota Entry undertaking. Mr. Cox mentioned the marketing campaign had led the undertaking to lose lenders and refinance at greater charges.
Greenpeace mentioned there was no proof that the banks had made choices based mostly on the letter, which was signed by greater than 500 teams.
Through the two-day jury choice that began on Monday, quite a few potential jurors indicated that they or their family had ties to the oil and gasoline trade or to native legislation enforcement officers who had been concerned in responding to the protests. That was anticipated given the prominence of the oil and gasoline trade within the area, and will give Power Switch a bonus within the trial.
The chosen jurors consisted of eight girls and three males, together with two alternates.
Attorneys for 2 different entities named within the lawsuit, Greenpeace Worldwide, based mostly within the Netherlands, and Greenpeace Fund, based mostly in Washington, additionally made statements in courtroom. They mentioned their organizations had been separate and had not been concerned with the protests.
The trial is scheduled to final 5 weeks.
