Imagine That! More Than Half The Jury In ND Greenpeace Pipeline Trial Have Direct Ties To Oil & Gas Industry

[hatrack]

More than half the jurors selected to hear a case brought by a major energy company against Greenpeace have ties to the fossil fuel industry, and most had negative views of anti-pipeline protests or groups that oppose the use of fossil fuels. The closely watched trial against Greenpeace in Mandan, North Dakota, showcased the difficulty in seating a jury in oil country, where many make their living in the industry. Greenpeace again on Wednesday sought to move the trial to another venue in the state.

Energy Transfer Partners, a Dallas-based oil-and-gas company worth almost $70bn, has accused Greenpeace of defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior during the area’s Dakota Access pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017. It is seeking $300m in damages, which Greenpeace says could bankrupt its US operation. Opening statements began on Wednesday in the case, which is expected to run for five weeks. In his opening, Energy Transfer’s attorney said he would prove his allegations that Greenpeace coordinated actions against the pipeline and defamed Energy Transfer, according to the Associated Press.

EDIT

Many potential jurors worked directly in the fossil fuel industry, a major employer in western North Dakota, or had close family members who worked in the industry. Some worked at local refineries or energy companies. Others receive money from oilwells on their or their family’s properties. They said they believed the industry was beneficial to them and the broader community, and they didn’t know how they would make money without it. One said that without fossil fuels, he would be “out on the streets”. The man is now on the jury. Another woman who made it on to the jury admitted she was very easily swayed by others because “people are very convincing”.

“It’s inconceivable that this jury could do anything other than ultimately enter a judgment on behalf of the plaintiff,” said Marty Garbus, a longtime trial attorney who is part of a trial-monitoring committee attending the trial. The group, made up of prominent civil rights attorneys and advocates, will observe the trial and have expressed concerns about judicial bias and violations of due process.

EDIT

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/27/greenpeace-dapl-jurors

[biophile]

1. Assuming they are convicted, who decides the amount of damages?

If it’s the judge, he can choose to assign a nominal amount. It’s doesn’t have to be the $3million that the oil companies seek

[hatrack]

2. If they're found liable, I'm assuming it's up to the jury, but not certain.

It's also $300 million, enough to destroy Greenpeace financially and to set a precedent for other environmental/climate organizations, which is the real point anyway.

[biophile]

5. You are correct in that! The example is the plan

[marble falls]

3. It's ND fer Pete's sakes. It's either wheat or oil. Or Dairy Queen.

[NNadir]

4. It's a shame that the children blinded by a lack of access to golden rice...

...didn't have access to legal powers to sue Greenpeace and that the large team of Nobel Laureate who called them out for that lack of access didn't fund one.

If you ask me, and maybe no one will, Greenpeace has played a huge role in keeping the fossil fuel industry viable. There attitudes have been great, for instance, for the German coal industry.

I oppose fossil fuels but I don't give a flying fuck about Greenpeace, kangaroo court or not.

[hunter]

6. If Greenpeace was an idea instead of an autocratic fundraising organization structured as a corporation...

... there could be nobody to sue.

If we play by the same rules and on the same playing fields as the environmentally destructive multi-billion dollar corporations then we will lose, especially when the current government is fully supporting these environmentally destructive corporations.

Certainly "in unity there is strength" but there is no reason this unity has to be defined by a corporate charter.