Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

northdakotamonitor.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 245 posts

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#111

Post by toomuchtodo »

some_random wrote: post #103
quotz wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because sometimes corruption happens.

They're a bunch of lifetime activists who spun up an authoritative sounding NGO that has done literally nothing else, but yeah muh corruption.

Oil companies have been suppressing climate change research for decades to keep cooking the earth for profits. Is that not corruption? I suppose if you are economically exposed to these gains, don’t believe in climate change, and/or won’t be here for the bad times from this, the facts may not matter to your mental model. The facts remain that climate change is real and oil companies are doing their best to extract every bit of profit they can until we’re off of oil, regardless of the negative trajectories and outcomes from this.

https://www.ucs.org/resources/decades-deceit

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#112

Post by amarant »

docdeek wrote: post #88
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an outsider, why is this a credible institution over the jury and judge?

I can't speak to the institution but the only public statements on their website relate to this particular trial. It could be this is the first ever trial they have monitored in this way; it might also be a group that will only ever monitor this one trial.

In other words Greenpeace is trying to muddy the waters and hide their guilt by painting themselves as the victims of injustice?

How very original..

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#113

Post by DannyBee »

ceejayoz wrote: post #21
DrBazza wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe? The judge, and the lawyers involved have the right to reject jurors that might prejudice a trail.

Yes, but that's a lot easier to manage in a county that doesn't have only 30k people in it.

They applied for change of venue 3 times, lost all 3 times, and appealed it to the north dakota supreme court, and lost there too.

Overall, they could not make the showing necessary.

I read the motions and responses, and was not particularly impressed with their arguments for change of venue.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#114

Post by some_random »

amarant wrote: post #112
docdeek wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't speak to the institution but the only public statements on their website relate to this particular trial. It could be this is the first ever trial they have monitored in this way; it might also be a group that will only ever monitor this one trial.

In other words Greenpeace is trying to muddy the waters and hide their guilt by painting themselves as the victims of injustice? How very original..

Yeah we're dealing with a mud fight between two highly resourced adversaries who are practiced in bullshit underhanded tactics and influence operations.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#115

Post by southerntofu »

some_random wrote: post #79
shrubby wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SLAPP as in Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. To keep the dissenting voices quiet and to scare other groups from protesting. Modus operandi for many industries.

That is objectively not what happened here though, the point of SLAPP is that it's a frivolous suit that's meant to just exhaust the resources of the "dissenting voices". They won this suit and honestly it's not hard to believe that Greenpeace is guilty to some degree even if proving it is.

Well it is very hard to believe they're guilty, at least to me. Too bad the news report does not provide any actual information about the case and the evidence (actual journalism beyond clickbaity headlines).

In environmental circles, Greenpeace is very well-known to be traitors working with big corporations to launder their image. They're opposed to sabotage and revolutionary tactics. Their activities are mostly fundraising and legal proceedings, and on the rare instance they perform so-called civil disobedience (such as deploying banners on nuclear plants), it is in very orderly fashion that doesn't provide much economic harm.

As a left-wing environmentalist, i wish such a strong voice as Greenpeace was capable to incite people to rise against the greedy corporations destroying our planet. I just don't see that happening, neither here in France nor in the USA.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#116

Post by some_random »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #111
some_random wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're a bunch of lifetime activists who spun up an authoritative sounding NGO that has done literally nothing else, but yeah muh corruption.

Oil companies have been suppressing climate change research for decades to keep cooking the earth for profits. Is that not corruption? I suppose if you are economically exposed to these gains, don’t believe in climate change, and/or won’t be here for the bad times from this, the facts may not matter to your mental model. The facts remain that climate change is real and oil companies are doing their best to extract ev…

Oil companies have done worse than that, but we're not talking about them right now we're talking about Trial Monitors Dot Org, the real authoritative source on this trial that has done literally nothing else.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#117

Post by xrd »

ufmace wrote: post #97
ttiurani wrote: post #56

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've been really fascinated by Donziger for a while:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger

It's a great story that documents the shifting winds of legal systems across continents.

My takeaway: there is zero consistency or absolute truth in any legal system.

"Human rights campaigners called Chevron's actions an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)"

"Chevron requested that the case be tried in Ecuador and, in 2002, the US court dismissed the plaintiffs case based on forum non conveniens and ruled that Ecuador had jurisdiction. The US court exacted a promise from Chevron that it would accept the decision of the Ecuadorian courts."

"A provincial Ecuadorean court found Chevron guilty in 2011 and awarded the plaintiffs $18 billion in damages. The decision was affirmed by three appellate courts including Ecuador's highest court, the National Court of Justice, although the damages were reduced to $9.5 billion."

But now, *Ecuador must pay Chevron* for damages:

"In 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that the $9.5 billion judgment in Ecuador was marked by fraud and corruption and "should not be recognised or enforced by the courts of other States." The amount Ecuador must pay to Chevron to compensate for damages is yet to be determined. The panel also stated that the corruption was limited to one judge, not the entire Ecuadorean legal system."

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#118

Post by jacquesm »

lkbm wrote: post #65
jacquesm wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike oil companies who would of course never do such a thing.

They sure do. They've also been sued for it, too, because it's bad. It's also bad for Greenpeace to do it.

There is absolutely no way the damage is that large and this seems to be mostly a revenge action by a community in which Greenpeace - or any other environmental organization - would never get a fair trial to begin with.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#119

Post by tlb »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #68
foolfoolz wrote: post #3

> Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that all worked for Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International. > The jury found Greenpeace USA liable for almost all claims. how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?

> Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International Why is something like this allowed to exist... Stacking entities and funneling wealth around in the guise of a noble cause.

International orgs usually need a company incorporated in every country they're working in. You need it to pay employees, for instance.

Re: Judge finalizes order for Greenpeace to pay $345M in ND oil pipeline case

#120

Post by kombine »

rayiner wrote: post #51
foolfoolz wrote: post #3

> Greenpeace maintains it only had six employees visit the protest camps, and that all worked for Greenpeace USA, not Greenpeace Fund or Greenpeace International. > The jury found Greenpeace USA liable for almost all claims. how does this happen? did greenepeace just run a bad trial? or lose all public trust?

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…

> 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

Decades and centuries from now our descendants will be dealing with the consequences of the destroyed climate and wonder why we punished the only people who tried to do something about it while justifying it by "the laws".

Post reply on HN