If Greenpeace wanted to make at least half of America fighting mad, it's chosen a good way to go about it.
A North Dakota jury ordered Greenpeace in March to pay pipeline company Energy Transfer $667 million for the environmental group’s rogue campaign to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline. Now, Greenpeace is trying to get a Dutch court to nullify the jury award, which the trial judge reduced to $345 million in October. Energy Transfer is asking the North Dakota Supreme Court to block the activist group’s attempt to end-run the U.S. legal system. If Greenpeace’s efforts succeed, they would harm much more than the pipeline company. They’d open the door for activists to torpedo other American critical infrastructure projects under European law.
. . .
The suit claims that Energy Transfer’s litigation violated Greenpeace International’s rights under the European Union’s 2024 anti-Slapp law, an anagram for strategic litigation against public participation. The law seeks to protect journalists and nonprofit organizations from meritless lawsuits designed to silence or intimidate them.
Greenpeace’s case isn’t an ordinary appeal, in which a party asks a higher court to review a lower court’s application of the law. Rather, Greenpeace is asking a Dutch court to reassess the merits of the North Dakota case under Europe’s sweeping anti-Slapp directive. The case marks the first attempt to apply the law “extraterritorially” to stymie a lawsuit brought in a country outside the European Union.
If the European directive achieves this reach, it would extend the EU’s regulatory imperialism to the political and social spheres where Europe and America follow starkly different legal norms: In a nutshell, Europe’s speech rules are based on values, while America’s are based on rights.
. . .
Under the EU directive, courts can award damages to parties that have been subjected to “abusive court proceedings,” including those involving “an imbalance of power between the parties” or “excessive” claims.
Greenpeace claims in the Dutch lawsuit that the financial resources of Energy Transfer constitute an “obvious” imbalance of power and that the company’s demands for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages are “clearly excessive.” But the rule of law is based on whether the parties acted within their legal rights, not on whether they happen to run a successful business like Energy Transfer that is seriously affected by a shutdown in operations. If Greenpeace succeeds, expect other activist organizations to incorporate in Europe so they can wiggle out of liability by invoking the EU’s loosely drawn “abusive court proceeding” standard against U.S. companies.
There's more at the link.
I don't know whether the European Union envisaged its anti-SLAPP law being used in this way, to undercut and nullify the duly constituted courts and legal system of a nation that's not a member of the Union. Nevertheless, it was worded loosely enough that Greenpeace sought to take advantage of it.
What happens if the Dutch court rules in Greenpeace's favor? For a start, no US court will issue an order making the Dutch ruling binding under US law. That right does not exist in terms of our constitution. So, let's say the US court goes ahead with its proposed ruling, and orders Greenpeace to pay damages. What if Greenpeace refuses, citing the Dutch court's ruling? If the US government sues them in a US court to recover the money, they'll simply file another Dutch lawsuit in retaliation. If the US does nothing, our laws will quite obviously no longer be adequate protection for our constitutionally enshrined property rights - and that will open the door to a Pandora's box of litigation, countersuit and wealthy lawyers. What if the US tries to sue Greenpeace in a European court? What if the latter rules that the US has no standing to do so, not being a member of the EU?
This is an appallingly complex can of worms. What it might lead to is anybody's guess. However, one thing I'm sure of: from now on, if I come across anything Greenpeace wants, or motivates, or works towards, I'm going to oppose it. I'll even donate to their opponents, whether or not I agree with their perspective. Try to thwart our laws, would they, without so much as a "By your leave" to the American people? To hell with them!
Peter
19 comments:
I would guess they intended it, as the fine against Facebook demonstrates. They were just penalized $1.3Billion dollars for "anti-competitive practices", and Google has been similarly hit.
Fortunately, President Trump has said he might start a Section 301 proceeding against the EU for it, but it hasn't happened yet.
Lastly, I'll note Britain imposing penalties against Americans for "hate speech" as defined by the British courts and the notices that "you can be held responsible for what you post" coming from the British gov't.
Extra-territory law indeed and we'll be controlled and charged by it if our Government doesn't push back and declare it illegal & unconstitutional.
Steve
I don’t see a problem with a US court seizing all Greenpeace’s assets to pay the fine, and if it can’t be paid in full, imprisoning all of Greenpeace’s members until paid.
The one time I've ever interacted with Greenpeacers was at a hiker hostel where they were doing some kind of training.
They left behind the biggest mess imaginable.
Given the things some members of Greenpeace have done, declare them a terrorist organization. They are/have interferred with US Energy Security and done so internationally. Then, anyone who is active with Greenpeace becomes a terrorist.
Now the fun can begin.
The purpose of lawyers and lawsuits is to transfer wealth...from the pockets of those who have to THEIR pockets. Thus the legal "quandary". A perfect means to make the lawyers involved richer. MUCH RICHER.
Asset seizure is quite an effective way, I think. Start with the US based ones, then targets of opportunity. Should also put a crimp in their sails regarding future US adventures.
This is like the kid's table assuming custody of the drumsticks at Thanksgiving dinner. Yeah sure, when you punks can reach that high...
Europe was a great place to grow up in the sixties and seventies when their defense tab was paid for by Americans and they could blow their allowances on Eurodreaming. Today's EU is what would happen here if OSHA was the whole government and there was no Second Amendment to allow us to protect ourselves from them. We don't legislate thought; they do. We have freedoms that they do not, and they won't ever forgive us for that. They envy us and want to see us reduced to their level of misery. I hope the europansies don't find some leftist obamajudge in some retroville to fetch their bone, but it they do, they are going to be unpleasantly surprised when they find out what eight kinds of hell a combative American lawyer can bring down on them..
The EU and it's component states spend their time regulating and/or suing each other, and recovering from paper cuts.
They've been trying to rope us into their greater-good corral. In all those movies, after the corral comes the branding, then the feedlots, and it's slaughter time. Still free-ranging here and cows will be cows, as they say at the feed store.
<A HREF="https://x.com/prestonjbyrne/status/1998221470020030712>Here</A> is another example of extraterritoriality but coming from Australia instead of the EU.
Get Trump to declare Greenpeace a terrorist organization.
The smart thing to do, in my opinion, would be to show up to the Dutch court with the US Ambassador or Secretary of State to inform them that, in the opinion of the United States of America, their court has no standing to review a court case ruled on by the US Judicial system. Furthermore, the USA is not and has never been a colonial holding of theirs, but, now that the subject has been broached, perhaps this case is evidence of them wishing to become an American colony?
Should the Dutch court review the case and rule against Energy Transfer, ET then would need to turn around and request the US courts to order the seizure of all corporate assets of Greenpeace, and any personal assets of the board/members of Greenpeace that should come under the authority of the USA. And word it in such a way that the US Coast Guard and US Navy are authorized to seize any of their assets they encounter in international waters on the high seas. And while we are at it, freeze the personal assets of the members of the Dutch court and issue arrest warrants for them. Contempt of Court would be the least of charges.
Greenpeace always was, from its inception, a terrorist organization, meant to strike fear into the heart of any/every nation
Alright, just drop Greenpeace International from the suit. That eliminates any non-U.S. court. I reckon GP Intl was only named for due diligence. All damages occurred in U.S. lands.
Meanwhile, sic the U.S. entities including Greenpeace USA. There seems to be plenty of evidence such that Energy Transfer would prevail. As part of the awards, GP is prohibited from any conduct within U.S. jurisdiction. Basically sue GP out of existence.
Google and Facebook deserved those penalties, and as an American I was overjoyed to see them issued. Also, those penalties were only able to be issued because Google and Facebook operate in EU markets, and violated EU law while doing so. There's nothing extraterritorial about it. If they don't want to pay the fines, they can cease operating in Europe.
Declaring them a terrorist organization seems righteous.
Letters of marque and reprisal for their ships...?
Good way to get more of your boats shot out from under you.
The reverse has already been litigated in Texas for an unfair Japanese judgement against a Texas Company.
https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/the-courage-co-v-887928072
Issue a letter of marque, capture one of those Greenpeace ships, bring it into US admiralty court and sell it to satisfy the judgement.
Remove their tax exempt status. For starters.
Interesting factoid. Their 2022 Form 990 shows them to be a 501(c)4 organization. Which means contributions to them are not tax deductible. I wonder how many democrats are claiming donations to them on their tax returns in error? Still, removing their tax exempt status would at a minimum make their net income taxable, and would force them to have to pay their 8,000+ "volunteers". That would hurt, even at minimum wage rates. But I also like the terrorist organization designation. They've proved that often enough.
Post a Comment