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

231–240 of 245 posts

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

#231

Post by RickJWagner »

ckrapu wrote: post #159
RickJWagner wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s very true. The frozen plains of North Dakota aren’t worth much without oil. With oil, they provide good paying jobs to people who otherwise won’t have them. I lived in the next state south for many years. Oil is definitely popular with the people of North Dakota.

With all due respect, I disagree. I loved the winters. I loved the people. I loved how its natural beauty was subtle and rewarded the patient, unlike El Capitan or the Black Hills. The economy was fine before oil appeared.

I see you speak in the past tense. So you’ve moved away, in spite of your love for the winters?

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

#233

Post by cucumber3732842 »

staticautomatic wrote: post #223
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're gonna have a hell of a time construing a quality (energy sector or few steps removed employment) as "cause" when it's applicable to a large minority if not majority of the jury pool. 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.

It’s actually not that uncommon to lose a ton of people for cause in cases that are a good fit for a transfer of venue motion. But of course it does come down to the trial judge. I don’t understand who this “next judge” is that you’re referring to.

>I don’t understand who this “next judge” is that you’re referring to.

If you do something slimy like dismiss a huge fraction of the juror pool because you don't like their demographics (vs for example having to dismiss the half of the population that had their opinion biased by the news or some other non-slimy reason to cause the same outcome) there will be an appeal and that appeal will be presided over by a judge.

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

#234

Post by terminalshort »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #216
terminalshort wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe telling some protesters to engage in direct action against a company leaking oil into their water supply Sounds like you put the maybe in the wrong place. The jury found that they did do that. And you have no evidence whatsoever that they leaked any oil into the water supply.

How dishonest or stupid do you have to be to make this comment?

I think you replied to the wrong comment as this is sounds like it is obviously directed at the person making allegations unsupported by evidence.

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

#235

Post by southerntofu »

terminalshort wrote: post #229
southerntofu wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, corporations are destroying our planet, whatever our individual consumption patterns are. I could be living in the woods and that would not change. I'm not denying we have a share of personal responsibility in profiting from this ecocidal system: i'm saying individuals have no choice and no power over this, and social change is produced on a bigger level.

We do have power over this. You said it yourself: > I could be living in the woods... And so could the rest of us. If we did, there would be no CO2 emissions and, therefore, no global warming. But we don't choose to do this because we would rather live with modern convenience.

There's fallacies with your argument:

- it's technically illegal for me to do that here in France, even if i'm the legal owner of the woods

- it could be a choice to live low-tech alternative lifestyles, if there was not active attacks by the State and corporations to destroy any kind of alternative means of survival, such as the very violent processes over the past few centuries to destroy subsistance farming and non-monetary exchanges (laws & regulations, expropriations, imprisonment and murder of political opposition such as during the Paris Commune)

- it doesn't matter what we personally and individually do: this is a problem at scale that can only be addressed at scale, and pretending otherwise is a bad faith argument on either side ("recycle your plastic bottles to save the planet")

- there's a wide range of possibilities for durable/repairable goods and sustainable lifestyles in between primitivism and our current ecocidal nightmare: to frame political choices as a binary is very limited or dishonest from an intellectual perspective

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

#236

Post by some_random »

zug_zug wrote: post #173
some_random wrote: post #70

So they almost certainly are guilty, but the damages seem exorbitant

Hard to believe you’re downvoted in an organic way…

It's alright, the American Oil Company bots and the Russian Oil Company bots are just fighting it out

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

#238

Post by DivingForGold »

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...

Witness as GP transfers out any remaining assets through crypto (we got hacked !), declares bankruptcy, and comes back with a new name, and Big Oil gets HOSED.

. . . She apparently will not go to jail because she is old, and it would be “sentencing her to die within the state prison system.” And hey, while she is accused of moving millions of dollars and various properties she owns to third parties to avoid financial penalties -- this Green Peace story the same take as the "70M Boomer" title below . . .

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

#239

Post by whoknowsidont »

terminalshort wrote: post #234
whoknowsidont wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How dishonest or stupid do you have to be to make this comment?

I think you replied to the wrong comment as this is sounds like it is obviously directed at the person making allegations unsupported by evidence.

Nope. It's definitely directed at the comment employing troll truisms.

Trying to masquerade your motivations with words that mean something is a trick as old as time, but this one is pretty blatant ;).

If you're capable of doing it, take a step back and reevaluate yourself. But something tells me you're not.

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

#240

Post by staticautomatic »

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #233
staticautomatic wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s actually not that uncommon to lose a ton of people for cause in cases that are a good fit for a transfer of venue motion. But of course it does come down to the trial judge. I don’t understand who this “next judge” is that you’re referring to.

>I don’t understand who this “next judge” is that you’re referring to. If you do something slimy like dismiss a huge fraction of the juror pool because you don't like their demographics (vs for example having to dismiss the half of the population that had their opinion biased by the news or some other non-slimy reason to cause the same outcome) there will be an appeal and that appeal will be presided over by a judge.

That's not how jury selection works. You never have enough peremptory strikes to "dismiss a huge fraction of the jury pool."
Post reply on HN