First, a communication from Lakota People’s Law Project on July 28, 2018: “As you are likely aware, on February 1, 2017, Dakota Access LLC called in law enforcement to arrest Chase Iron Eyes and other water protectors on land the company claimed to own. This supposed ‘ownership’ is a point of contention that our Lakota People’s Law Project legal team will address at Chase’s trial this November.
“Now, in a huge development for the case, the North Dakota attorney general has sued Dakota Access LLC, charging that it never acquired legal ownership of that land. A North Dakota state statute expressly prohibits a corporation like Dakota Access from acquiring or owning North Dakota farm or ranch land.
“We Lakota know that the land belongs to us (under the Fort Laramie Treaties of 1851 and 1868). In our latest video update, Lakota Law Chief Counsel Daniel Sheehan talks about the AG’s suit and the impact on Chase’s legal defense. Please watch and share it on Facebook and Twitter.
“A recent article by the Associated Press’s Blake Nicholson quotes our notice to the court: ‘Given that Dakota Access can’t legally own the land under state law, the company had no legal authority whatsoever to direct law enforcement authorities to forcibly remove’ Chase and the others participating in ceremony at Last Child Camp.”
Please watch and share our video with your networks.
Second, a July 30, 2018, article from ShadowProof, Dakota Access Pipeline Company’s Lawsuit Against BankTrack For Sending Letters Dismissed By Federal Judge, says, “A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Energy Transfer Partners against an environmental and human rights organization, BankTrack, for its advocacy against their Dakota Access Pipeline project. BankTrack is based in Nijmegen, Netherlands, and as the court describes, the organization uses ‘engagement and public pressure to stop banks from financing specific projects it disagrees with.’ Letters to banks financing the Dakota Access Pipeline were organized, and Energy Transfer Partners sued BankTrack for hundreds of millions of dollars. The corporation alleged that BankTrack was involved in “criminal racketeering” and owed damages under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. ‘An extreme minority of DAPL protestors committed criminal acts that harmed Energy Transfer,’ Judge Billy Roy Wilson ruled [PDF]. ‘But BankTrack’s letters did not plausibly cause or further arson, bombing, destruction of an energy facility, transportation of stolen property, drug trafficking, “acts of terrorism,” or violation of the PATRIOT Act.’ BankTrack director Johan Frijns said the organization ‘raised legitimate human rights concerns arising from the Dakota Access Pipeline with the banks financing the project. The judge’s decision confirms that this type of advocacy work is legitimate and is not ‘reasonably or plausibly related’ to any acts of criminal conduct,’ Frijns added. ‘We hope the judge will now similarly dismiss the case against the other defendants, and that the ringing rejection of this case will discourage other corporations from launching these kinds of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.'”