101–110 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rough jury pool. 75.36% for Trump in the latest election, and one presumes a lot of energy sector employment.
Did you feel that the jury in New York City (76% voted for Biden in 2020) that convicted Trump of falsifying business records similarly corrupt?
Convicting Trump doesn't throw half of NYC onto the dole, either.
So they almost certainly are guilty, but the damages seem exorbitant
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an outsider, why is this a credible institution over the jury and judge?
Because sometimes corruption happens.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The protests involved what activists call “direct action,” which involves trespassing on private property, blockading workers, or damaging equipment in an effort to prevent otherwise lawful activity. For example, activists admitted to setting fire to equipment and pipeline valves in an effort to stop construction: https://www.kcci.com/article/2-women-admit-to-causing-damage... . That’s legally straightforward conduct…
Direct action is literally their policy
I'm not sure what they were expecting. Direct action agains an oil pipeline in ND is gonna go over about as well as direct action tourism in Florida. If by some miracle you get a judge sympathetic to your cause you won't get a jury that is. The local people want this industry, generally speaking.
For context, a statement from the legal experts who monitored the trial. > It is our collective assessment that the jury verdict against Greenpeace in North Dakota reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense. https://www.trialmonitors.org/statement-of-independent-trial...
Why should I care what they think? Seriously, I'm so tired of seeing XYZ totally real and credentialed expert non government organization pop up in weird appeals to authority. They couldn't even be bothered to monitor any other trials for this one, this looks to be the only thing they've ever done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lawyers don't have unlimited removals though.
Not peremptory strikes, but you have unlimited removals for cause (and admittedly a steep appellate hill to climb if they’re unfairly denied)
The judge might allow it, but the odds are long and the next judge will certainly allow an appeal on those grounds so you probably don't even gain much except time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They just need to do what oil & gas (and other "dirty" industries) do to avoid reputcussions: form lots of shell companies to shield the parent. It becomes a hydra of corporations kinda like terrorist cells.
[flagged]
For context, a statement from the legal experts who monitored the trial. > It is our collective assessment that the jury verdict against Greenpeace in North Dakota reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense. https://www.trialmonitors.org/statement-of-independent-trial...
[flagged]
I'm not sure that's an accurate description. Are "Human Rights" inherently left-wing? Is environmental protection inherently left-wing? Is political corruption inherently right wing?
This is of legal experts each with 30+ years of experience in the fields with which this trial is concerned (environmentalism, corruption, humans rights abuses).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yet large companies appear to get away with it all the time - for example the so called Texas two step. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_two-step_bankruptcy In my view the best way to get this sort of stuff banned is to start using it yourself.
J&J tried it but was ultimately rejected last year.
Summarizing Matt Levine's various columns on the issue from memory:
1. J&J lost a lawsuit about talc and the winner was awarded $Xb (or maybe $XXXm, my memory is fuzzy) in damages.
2. J&J transferred $XXb to a new company.
3. It let the new company take on current and future liabilities for judgements on the talc issue.
4. J&J then had the new company declare bankruptcy. The bankruptcy process is designed to pay out money fairly to all creditors. The new company's only creditors were the plaintiffs in the lawsuit J&J lost + any future claimants. So this wasn't necessarily nefarious.
5. A judge rejected the bankruptcy because J&J had funded the company with $XXb and that was in excess of its current liabilities. As Levine put it, the company wasn't "bankrupt enough" yet.
I didn't keep up with the story after that so maybe I missed something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or maybe, just maybe, they actually did unreasonably damage the pipeline company's reputation, in a way that is outside the legally-recognized bounds of free speech. Maybe justice actually was done. (Note well: I haven't been following this case closely enough to say. But you should at least consider that as a possibility.)
this is only possible if you can somehow square a pipeline company's activities as intersecting with the arc of justice. as it stands, they're actively hastening the degradation of land, water, wildlife, human life and surrounding climates everywhere they operate.