Skip to content

Tee Hee

A North Dakota judge has said he will order Greenpeace to pay damages expected to total $345m in connection with protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline from nearly a decade ago, a figure the environmental group contends it cannot pay.

In court papers filed Tuesday, Judge James Gion said he would sign an order requiring several Greenpeace entities to pay the judgment to pipeline company Energy Transfer. He set that amount at $345m last year in a decision that reduced a jury’s damages by about half, but his latest filing did not specify a final amount.

They caused damage to people. Why shouldn’t they have to pay?

5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

13 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ottokring
Ottokring
2 months ago

Shell should have sued them for their lies about that defunct oil platform.

Like Labour, the utter destruction to the atomic level of Greenpeace is well overdue.

Boganboy
Boganboy
2 months ago

If people who engaged in a protest had to pay the full costs of those affected, it would certainly reduce these nuisances quite a bit!!!

Bloke in Wales
Bloke in Wales
2 months ago
Reply to  Boganboy

I think that can be extended to strikes too. The transport unions (for example) should be liable for all the extra expenses of everyone trying to get to work when the train drivers are on strike.

Bloke in South Dorset
Bloke in South Dorset
2 months ago
Reply to  Bloke in Wales

Unions were found to be liable for employer losses from strikes in the 1901 Taff Vale railway case.

(amusingly what made it possible to sue them was the legal recognition given to unions in the 1871 Trade Union Act, which they had campaigned for)

However the unions were then given protection by the supposedly Liberal Campbell-Bannerman government, with the Trade Disputes Act 1906.

The constitutional lawyer Dicey said that this:
makes a trade union a privileged body exempted from the ordinary law of the land. No such privileged body has ever before been deliberately created by an English Parliament”

Schumpeter said that it:
”resigned to the trade unions part of the authority of the state and granted to them a position of privilege“

Grist
Grist
2 months ago

If only those cases could be brought to the attention of the most powerful lawyer in the land. Mind you, he still push ahead with his Islamophobia Law, or Lord Alli would turn nasty…

jgh
jgh
2 months ago
Reply to  Boganboy

I knew somebody who fully signed up to the social contract that you are willing to trade your freedom to make a political point by protesting, and that protest has no value if you have no costs to pay. She dismissed all the “how *DARE* you send me to prison for smashing stuff up, I was protesting!” morons.

Bloke in North Dorset
Bloke in North Dorset
2 months ago

a figure the environmental group contends it cannot pay.

In that case their directors should be held personally liable.

johnnybonk
johnnybonk
2 months ago

Are they not Limited Liability. What’s the deal?

johnnybonk
johnnybonk
2 months ago
Reply to  johnnybonk

Limited Liability does not protect from malfeasance , so perhaps the directors might be on the hook. I’ve been waiting for something like this. They might find themselves lawfared into penury.

Last edited 2 months ago by johnnybonk
Norman
Norman
2 months ago

Wind them up and sell the assets, then, like any other entity rendered bankrupt by its own actions.

PiP Community Leader
PiP Community Leader
2 months ago

“Are Greenpiss better or worse than Pals of the Planet?”

“For whom?”

Gamecock
Gamecock
2 months ago
13
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x