3 ms·

One would think that if there are clear cut examples of false statements that could do on the order of $300M in damage to the company, it wouldn't be difficult

One would think that if there are clear cut examples of false statements that could do on the order of $300M in damage to the company, it wouldn't be difficult to find them. But the defamation allegations I'm reading don't seem to fit in that category, like * Accusations that Energy Transfer employed aggressive tactics against protesters. * Claims that Energy Transfer desecrated burial sites during the pipeline construction. * Statements characterizing the Dakota Access Pipeline project as "climate destroying". * Assertions that Energy Transfer was "motivated entirely by money, not its proclaimed concerns about environmental impacts". * Allegations that the pipeline posed a threat to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe's water resources. These all seem to involve opinion as much as fact. What constitutes aggressive tactics, desecration, climate destruction, motivation, a threat to water resources? Are these damaging statements? Yes. Are they false? That's just, like, your opinion man. There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those.

Eridrus 2y ago
One of the reasons we have juries is to answer subjective questions like this, because many questions in law are actually subjective.
- billiam 2y ago
  As is the jury selection process, especially in low population areas. And jury instructions from the judge. This seems to be a particularly egregious example, and I think on appeal this will will be corrected.
marcinzm 2y ago
> There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those. Does this also apply in the case of government or corporate abuse against people? For example class action lawsuits? I suspect those in power would love this since it's much easier to influence a few career judges than random jurors with "incentives."
- staticautomatic 2y ago
  Claims against the federal government aren't heard by juries; the Court of Claims only does bench trials. The subject matter of class actions isn't inherently any more complex than individual cases. The judges vs juries thing is an argument as old as America: Hamilton favored limiting juries, Jefferson insisted they were necessary to protect people from corrupt judges.
stickfigure 2y ago
On the other hand a jury of nine people, vetted with voir dire, found them guilty. There's probably something there. I'm waiting to form opinions until the appeals are over.
- g_sch 2y ago
  Notably the jury pool was from North Dakota, a state where many people have direct or indirect ties to oil and gas industries. In fact, > During jury selection, potential jurors appeared to largely dislike the protests, and many had ties to the fossil fuel industry. In the end, more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry, and most had negative views of anti-pipeline protests or groups that oppose the use of fossil fuels. Source: https://archive.ph/OMEYP#selection-1559.0-1563.204 https://archive.ph/OMEYP#selection-1559.0-1563.204
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    You mean conspiring to cause immense economic harm to an already impoverished part of the country will make your organization unpopular in that region? shocked pikachu
    - mistrial9 2y ago
      playing economically broke locals against protesters of multinational energy giant gets "pikachu"? is anyone reading this, that simple minded? superficial or purposefully over-simplified feedback it seems
- staticautomatic 2y ago
  Based on the article's description of jury selection, this seems like a case where the jury was probably biased but the verdict will not be overturned on appeal for that reason. The appeal on that issue probably won't be very helpful to forming an opinion because the bar is unreasonably high and 99.999% of trial lawyers are bad at making the record. Perhaps they can win on a transfer of venue appeal or something, which is quite a long shot but maybe not as long as jury selection bias. (I'm a former jury consultant and a non-practicing lawyer).
nradov 2y ago
I don't know how the damages were calculated but it seems that the claims were partly for trespassing. So it wasn't purely about defamation.
prepend 2y ago
Desecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious, if proven true. I think lots of defamation cases come down to subjectivity, thus the court systems and judges and whatnot. I don’t think society would benefit from “it’s just he said/she said” and throwing up our hands. Courts are made for these cases.
- dagw 2y ago
  Desecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious My understanding is that the oil companies main defence is that they asked representatives of the tribe in question if any of the land they where planning on building on had any sacred or cultural significance, and the burial ground in question wasn't flagged by the tribe. They claim that they avoided other sites flagged by the tribe, but this site was only brought to their attention much later and after protests had started. Their implicit argument seems to be that this site only 'became' a burial site when it was poltically expedient for it to be one, and that Greenpeace either lied about it being a burial site or at the very least greatly exaggerated it importance.
  - prepend 2y ago
    That seems to be the disagreement. But saying someone desecrated a grave is a pretty serious accusation. That’s quite different from accidentally digging up a grave that no one knew was a grave.
rufus_foreman 2y ago
The claims by the company in question were for far more than defamation: "[the lead attorney representing Energy Transfer] said all three Greenpeace defendants worked in concert to send supplies to the protests, share intel with protesters and pay Native activists to conduct trainings in the camps that encouraged demonstrators to break the law. He showed the jury photos of construction equipment with broken windows, anti-pipeline messages written in graffiti and gas tanks filled with sand. He also displayed photos of vehicles on fire." -- https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/17/greenpeace-case-in-hands-of-jury-as-energy-transfer-makes-case-for-800-million-in-damages/ https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/17/greenpeace-case-in...
- aaronbaugher 2y ago
  Sounds like "fiery but mostly peaceful protests."

Eridrus 2y ago

One of the reasons we have juries is to answer subjective questions like this, because many questions in law are actually subjective.

billiam 2y ago
As is the jury selection process, especially in low population areas. And jury instructions from the judge. This seems to be a particularly egregious example, and I think on appeal this will will be corrected.

marcinzm 2y ago

> There should be an analogue of the Major Questions Doctrine to limit the power of juries for the same reason as for bureaucrats: legislators should answer those. Does this also apply in the case of government or corporate abuse against people? For example class action lawsuits? I suspect those in power would love this since it's much easier to influence a few career judges than random jurors with "incentives."

staticautomatic 2y ago
Claims against the federal government aren't heard by juries; the Court of Claims only does bench trials. The subject matter of class actions isn't inherently any more complex than individual cases. The judges vs juries thing is an argument as old as America: Hamilton favored limiting juries, Jefferson insisted they were necessary to protect people from corrupt judges.

stickfigure 2y ago

On the other hand a jury of nine people, vetted with voir dire, found them guilty. There's probably something there. I'm waiting to form opinions until the appeals are over.

g_sch 2y ago
Notably the jury pool was from North Dakota, a state where many people have direct or indirect ties to oil and gas industries. In fact, > During jury selection, potential jurors appeared to largely dislike the protests, and many had ties to the fossil fuel industry. In the end, more than half the jurors selected to hear the case had ties to the fossil fuel industry, and most had negative views of anti-pipeline protests or groups that oppose the use of fossil fuels. Source: https://archive.ph/OMEYP#selection-1559.0-1563.204 https://archive.ph/OMEYP#selection-1559.0-1563.204
- lupusreal 2y ago
  You mean conspiring to cause immense economic harm to an already impoverished part of the country will make your organization unpopular in that region? shocked pikachu
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    playing economically broke locals against protesters of multinational energy giant gets "pikachu"? is anyone reading this, that simple minded? superficial or purposefully over-simplified feedback it seems
staticautomatic 2y ago
Based on the article's description of jury selection, this seems like a case where the jury was probably biased but the verdict will not be overturned on appeal for that reason. The appeal on that issue probably won't be very helpful to forming an opinion because the bar is unreasonably high and 99.999% of trial lawyers are bad at making the record. Perhaps they can win on a transfer of venue appeal or something, which is quite a long shot but maybe not as long as jury selection bias. (I'm a former jury consultant and a non-practicing lawyer).

nradov 2y ago

I don't know how the damages were calculated but it seems that the claims were partly for trespassing. So it wasn't purely about defamation.

prepend 2y ago

Desecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious, if proven true. I think lots of defamation cases come down to subjectivity, thus the court systems and judges and whatnot. I don’t think society would benefit from “it’s just he said/she said” and throwing up our hands. Courts are made for these cases.

dagw 2y ago
Desecrating graves seems pretty objectively provable and serious My understanding is that the oil companies main defence is that they asked representatives of the tribe in question if any of the land they where planning on building on had any sacred or cultural significance, and the burial ground in question wasn't flagged by the tribe. They claim that they avoided other sites flagged by the tribe, but this site was only brought to their attention much later and after protests had started. Their implicit argument seems to be that this site only 'became' a burial site when it was poltically expedient for it to be one, and that Greenpeace either lied about it being a burial site or at the very least greatly exaggerated it importance.
- prepend 2y ago
  That seems to be the disagreement. But saying someone desecrated a grave is a pretty serious accusation. That’s quite different from accidentally digging up a grave that no one knew was a grave.

rufus_foreman 2y ago

The claims by the company in question were for far more than defamation: "[the lead attorney representing Energy Transfer] said all three Greenpeace defendants worked in concert to send supplies to the protests, share intel with protesters and pay Native activists to conduct trainings in the camps that encouraged demonstrators to break the law. He showed the jury photos of construction equipment with broken windows, anti-pipeline messages written in graffiti and gas tanks filled with sand. He also displayed photos of vehicles on fire." -- https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/17/greenpeace-case-in-hands-of-jury-as-energy-transfer-makes-case-for-800-million-in-damages/ https://northdakotamonitor.com/2025/03/17/greenpeace-case-in...

aaronbaugher 2y ago
Sounds like "fiery but mostly peaceful protests."