Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday August 25 2017, @11:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the greenbacks-are-good-for-the-environment dept.

The company that built the disputed Dakota Access oil pipeline filed a lawsuit against Greenpeace and other groups on Tuesday, alleging that they disseminated false and misleading information about the project and interfered with its construction.

In its lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in North Dakota, Texas-based Energy Transfer Partners requests damages that could approach $1 billion.

The company alleges that the groups' actions interfered with its business, facilitated crimes and acts of terrorism, incited violence, targeted financial institutions that backed the project and violated racketeering and defamation laws. The company seeks a trial and monetary damages, noting that disruptions to construction alone cost it at least $300 million and requesting triple damages.

The group of defendants "is comprised of rogue environmental groups and militant individuals who employ a pattern of criminal activity and a campaign of misinformation for purposes of increasing donations and advancing their political or business agendas," the company said in a statement.

Greenpeace attorney Tom Wetterer said the lawsuit is "meritless" and part of "a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies."

The lawsuit is "not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation," Wetterer said.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2017/08/22/company-behind-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-sues-greenpeace.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @05:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @05:38PM (#559003)

    'Even if we agree that "pipeline is bad, yo" and "save the trees/water/air" and all that, then in that case we would be coincidentally agreeing with a group of rogues, criminals, and eco-terrorists who engage in a pattern of criminal conspiracy that goes back for decades, who believe that "the ends justify the means."'

    There should be no "if we agree" in there. But that aside, how about addressing the criminal conspiracy to suppress evidence and knowingly pollute the environment for the sake of profit. Does profit justify the means?

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1