Case 1:17-cv-00173-CSM Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 1 of 187 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P., and Case No.: ___________ ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P., Judge: ___________ Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL (aka “STICHTING GREENPEACE COUNCIL”); GREENPEACE, INC.; GREENPEACE FUND, INC.; BANKTRACK (aka “STICHTING BANKTRACK”); EARTH FIRST!; and JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-20, Defendants. Plaintiffs Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (collectively “Energy Transfer” or “Plaintiffs”), as and for their complaint against Greenpeace International (aka “Stichting Greenpeace Council”), Greenpeace, Inc. (“GP-Inc.”), Greenpeace Fund, Inc. (“GP-Fund”) (collectively, the “Greenpeace Defendants”), BankTrack (aka “Stichting BankTrack”), Earth First!, and John and Jane Does 1-20, allege as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This case involves a network of putative not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups who employ patterns of criminal activity and campaigns of misinformation to target legitimate companies and industries with fabricated environmental claims and other purported misconduct, inflicting billions of dollars in damage. The network’s pattern of criminal and other misconduct includes (i) defrauding charitable donors and cheating federal and state tax authorities with claims that they are legitimate tax-free charitable organizations; (ii) cyber- attacks; (ii) intentional and malicious interference with their targeted victim’s business Case 1:17-cv-00173-CSM Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 2 of 187 relationships; and (iv) physical violence, threats of violence and the purposeful destruction of private and federal property. Energy Transfer is the latest legitimate business targeted by this network. 2. Over several decades, certain once legitimate not-for-profit groups have been corrupted by money raised from individuals and a network of foundations and special interests willing to “contribute” to advance their own political or business agendas. More recently, many smaller, more violent eco-terrorist organizations and radicalized individuals have begun exploiting the same lucrative business model using the proliferation of web-based fundraising tools to make money, much of which is diverted for personal gain and not used to further any environmental cause. 3. In its simplest form, this model has two components: (1) manufacturing a media spectacle based upon phony but emotionally charged hot-button issues, sensational lies, and intentionally incited physical violence, property destruction, and other criminal conduct; and (2) relentlessly publicizing these sensational lies, manufactured conflict and conflagration, and misrepresented “causes” to generate funding from individual donors, foundations, and corporate sponsors. These putative “environmental” groups accept grants and other consideration from foundations and special business interests who use the groups’ environmental mantle to advance their own ulterior agendas. 4. The market leader among purported international not-for-profits is a network called “Greenpeace.” The Greenpeace network has fraudulently induced people throughout the United States and the world into donating millions of dollars based on materially false and misleading claims about its misrepresented environmental purpose and the sham “campaigns” it mounts against targeted companies, projects, or causes. 2 Case 1:17-cv-00173-CSM Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 3 of 187 5. Under the “Greenpeace Model,” raising money and the network’s profile is the primary objective, not saving the environment. “Issues” are selected according to which ones will generate maximum publicity and donations, irrespective of the environmental merits. As a matter of course, the campaigns are based upon fabricated evidence and witness accounts. Greenpeace has staged phony photo-ops, and fabricated false GPS coordinates representing locations and events that never occurred to support its campaigns, deceive the public, and elicit donations. 6. Greenpeace’s most senior leaders have admitted that their goal is not to present accurate facts, but to “emotionalize” issues and thereby “pressure” (i.e. manipulate) their donor audiences into parting with their money. When caught red-handed spreading patently false misinformation, Greenpeace has conceded that to “emotionalize” targeted donors and other victims, it uses what it calls internally, “ALARMIST ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOIDS,” that it intentionally and expressly markets to its donors as “facts” based on “research,” and “science.” Indeed, in a recent effort to escape legal liability for its widespread dissemination of emotionally charged, but wholly untrue statements made in the course of a fundraising campaign, Greenpeace admitted that its claims against another targeted company were not based on “research,” “facts,” or “science” as donors were told, but were “hyperbole” and “overheated rhetoric” that did not reflect “scientific precision” and should not be taken “literally.” 7. For decades, Greenpeace has executed its fraudulent, slanderous campaigns against hundreds of companies and industries with virtual impunity, and its tactics have become increasingly aggressive as a result. The great success of the model has led to an explosion of groups and individuals attempting to likewise profit from exploiting the sincere environmental 3 Case 1:17-cv-00173-CSM Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 4 of 187 interests of the public. These groups include Earth First!, Bold Alliance, BankTrack, and others. Together with Greenpeace, these groups form a predatory pack preying on legitimate businesses. 8. In June 2014, Plaintiffs and their partners announced the development and construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (“DAPL” or the “Project”) to provide much needed safe and efficient crude oil transport in the wake of exploding North American production. For more than two years, Energy Transfer and its partners, together with federal and state regulatory agencies, meticulously designed, planned, and constructed the pipeline. The company went to extraordinary lengths to plan for the project to cross, almost exclusively, private land. In addition, wherever possible the route was designed to traverse already-disturbed property that was the site of other decades-old public works projects, including gas and power lines, to avoid environmentally or culturally sensitive areas. Plaintiffs’ representatives also engaged in exceptional efforts to confer with all interested stakeholders potentially affected by the pipeline’s construction, and to accommodate any genuine or legitimate concerns and objections raised by them. DAPL’s extensive and well-documented community outreach was in addition to tribal and other consultation undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps” or “USACE”) related to the Project’s crossing at Lake Oahe, which a federal court found, on its own, went above and beyond what was legally required. 9. Among those approached repeatedly by Plaintiffs’ representatives and the Corps for input, were the Native American tribes with property near or potentially affected by the proposed pipeline route, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (“Standing Rock” or “SRST” or the “Tribe”) in North Dakota. During the planning and construction of the pipeline, DAPL attempted to directly engage relevant tribes even though the project does not pass over any sovereign Native American territory at any point along its route. Nevertheless, for two years, 4 Case 1:17-cv-00173-CSM Document 1 Filed 08/22/17 Page 5 of 187 Plaintiffs’ representatives sought to inform and listen to these critical constituents and to respond to the concerns they raised. Some tribes elected to engage with DAPL and the Corps, and, as a result, the pipeline was rerouted repeatedly to avoid areas deemed culturally important, even though not on sovereign land, and various other steps also were implemented to further this goal. Other tribes, including specifically SRST, refused to work with DAPL and declined offers to participate in cultural surveys of aspects of the route that were not subject to review by the Corps. 10. On July 25, 2016, years after DAPL began its outreach and the Corps engaged in its consultation, the Corps granted the permit to proceed with one of the final pieces of the pipeline under Lake Oahe. The very next day, enterprise member Earthjustice commenced a highly publicized lawsuit on behalf of the Tribe challenging the permit. The filing was accompanied by a press release right out of the “Greenpeace Model” -- making the grossly untrue and factually unfounded claims, among others, that the pipeline “Threatens Livelihoods, Sacred Sites, and Water”; and that the permitting process was “fast-tracked,” “wrote off the Tribe’s concerns,” “ignored the pipeline’s impacts to sacred sites and culturally important landscapes,” and created an “existential threat” of an “inevitable” spill that would poison the Tribe’s water supply. The press release also misrepresented that: “There have been shopping malls that have received more environmental review and Tribal consultation than this massive crude oil pipeline. Pipelines spill and leak – it’s not a matter of if, but when. Construction will destroy sacred and historically significant sites.” Employing the “Greenpeace Model,” the press release concluded with a solicitation for money, imploring readers to “Join Our Fight” and providing a link to donate with a