Don’t Mess With Mandan

BBC;

A North Dakota jury has found Greenpeace liable for defamation, ordering it to pay more than $660m (£507m) in damages to an oil company for the environmental group’s role in one of the largest anti-fossil fuel protests in US history.

Texas-based Energy Transfer also accused Greenpeace of trespass, nuisance and civil conspiracy over the demonstrations nearly a decade ago against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, argued that Greenpeace was behind an “unlawful and violent scheme to cause financial harm to Energy Transfer”.

Greenpeace, which vowed to appeal, said last month it could be forced into bankruptcy because of the case, ending over 50 years of activism.

h/t Ken

38 Replies to “Don’t Mess With Mandan”

  1. Oh No!

    Anyway
    Or, as I call them, Greenfleece.

  2. Good. Bankrupt the filthy environazis. Even the founder of Greenpeace thinks they should be eliminated.

    1. When Greenpeace comes to town…the state of North Dakota sued them for $38m just to clean up the damned mess they made. All of it in the floodplain, so…shit on the water.
      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/1/dakota-access-protesters-accused-of-destroying-env/

      “Approximately 21 million pounds of trash, debris and waste was ultimately removed from the protest site at Lake Oahe, costing over $1 million in clean up and causing significant concern for the health of the lake. Corps Capt. Ryan Hignight said a total of 8,170 cubic yards of debris was removed from the three camps – Sacred Stone, Oceti Sakowin and Rosebud – all within the flood plain on federally managed land. “

  3. 3 Birds 1 Stone

    Energy Transfer’s legal action named 1) Greenpeace USA, as well as its Washington DC-based funding arm 2) Greenpeace Fund Inc and its Amsterdam-based parent group 3) Greenpeace International.

    1. Interesting, that’s where my grandmother was born.
      She would have shaken her head at these idiots!

  4. Want to know a dirty little secret about organizations such as Greenpeace, GreenpeaceNetherlands, Sierra Club and the like? It’s all a charade when they interact with the Environmental Protection Agency. Let’s say the current administration says that the EPA will not recognize CO2 as a pollutant.

    Well, officially, the EPA does what they are told, while simultaneously shelling out billions in grants to those very organizations that WANT CO2 listed as a pollutant. Someone like Greenpeace or the Sierra Club uses some of that grant to file a plaintiff suit against the EPA. The EPA employees (most of whom are ideologues) encourage them to do so. Then, let’s say the defense put up by the EPA’s attorneys isn’t exactly stellar. Additionally, they will play fast and loose with discovery and pleadings such that about half way through, the plaintiff will file a “Unlawful Delay Motion.” The EPA will then respond with “Oops, you’re right. How about if we stipulate to pay your legal and expert fees?” Which then removes costs from Greenpeace or Sierra Club or whomever.

    More often than not, the “position” of the EPA is overturned, the plaintiff sometimes gets damages, but usually not. However, the EPA has already stipulated to pay their costs. In short, the EPA encourages the suit, defends it poorly, affirms that the plaintiff has no costs, and the plaintiff is sitting on top of a nice gift of a grant without expenses.

    Now you know why there is $20 Billion in bulk grants sitting in Citibank right now while a partisan judge is trying their best to get it distributed. Most of these external Environmental groups are managed and operated by ex-EPA employees.

    1. Very well put.
      Unfortunately the jury hasn’t kept up with inflation. It should have been billions not millions as that is what these grifters have cost every democracy on earth.

      1. Did you happen to see the information that just came out on The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)? Don’t ask me what they do. No one knows. But, the waste was so bad in that agency that they were taking government taxpayer money and commissioning painted portraits of the employees to be hung in the hallway of a 9 story high rise on K-Street, with only 60 employees (most of whom were “working” from home even prior to COVID).

        1. No, but your retelling just made me a little sick to my stomach. I have GOT to subscribe to ‘X’ so I can keep up with DOGE …

  5. Many of these activists are so convinvced of the righteousness of their cause that they think almost any action is justifiable. They usually stop short of physical violence, but not always.

    1. They never stop short of physical violence. That’s the MO. That’s what vandalism, intimidation, riots, burnings, etc. are. Violence to achieve their intended end. Domestic terrorists. Need to be prosecuted accordingly.

    2. “Many of these activists are so convinced of the righteousness of their cause that they think almost any action is justifiable.” Yep, and here’s a video from 2010 of a beautiful boat, the ‘Ady Gil’, being destroyed by a Japanese whaling vessel as Peter Bethune of ‘Sea Shepherd’ intentionally drives it directly into the path of the ship (watch the prop wash closely before the collision):
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dXCR9LX-Kc

  6. Every member of the Greenpeace “leadership” should also be personally sued into the ground.

  7. A few years ago I was approached by a young Greenpeace worker on the street trying to sign up new members. I told her that I was all for their cause and used to donate to it back when they were all about saving the whales, but they had lost me when they started picketing US warships in Vancouver harbour. She didn’t like that at all.

    Some months after that, it was another young girl soliciting donations for Amnesty International. Told her that they lost me when they started attacking the US and Israel while choosing to ignore the very worst human rights offenders. She just glared at me and didn’t even say a word.

    Vote with your wallet whenever possible.

    1. Yep … My mom taught me that “vote with your wallet” philosophy and I have practiced it diligently for many decades. Even when traveling if I cannot 100% avoid one of my designated “No Spend” states I will consult a county by county map of the last election results to decide where to fill up with gas. We who earned the money should at least have the freedom to decide where to spend the money the government has so generously left us after taxes!

      1. I’m deathly tired of hearing ridiculous claims of how irresponsible energy firms are. They are, in my experience, careful and environmentally responsible but constantly under criticism by trust fund babies not smart enough to lick a stamp.

    1. Here’s another little factoid for the “environmentalists” who refuse to allow ANY pipeline under their sacred waters. The BART tube under the seismically jittery San Francisco Bay … and the Chunnel under the English Channel. Neither of those tubes have leaked any humans into the water.

      We have the technology. Sheesh.

  8. Didn’t Greenpeace venture into Russian waters to unfurl a banner on an off-shore oil rig? Once?

  9. We should be so lucky to see “Green Priests” bankrupt but there are enough demented plutocrats and state implants eager to ease their guilt to keep them solvent. There also so many ENGOs and large foundations dedicated to de-industrialization and de-population that even if Green Priests went under, their “personnel” would be sucked up by the blob. I’d like to see more of this except for my aversion to more benefit to the ambulance chasers.

Navigation