Energy Transfer Partners, the Dallas-based developer of the heavily criticized Dakota Access Pipeline, has filed a massive $1 billion lawsuit against activist groups including Greenpeace, Earth First!, BankTrack, the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand. Energy Transfer claims that by protesting, and encouraging others to protest the pipeline, the actions of the groups “violated federal and state racketeering statutes, defamation, and constituted defamation and tortious interference under North Dakota law.”

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court in North Dakota. Energy Transfer is claiming that the groups embarked on a campaign of misinformation about the pipeline, sparking the drawn-out protests, and funded and supported eco-terrorists. A press release about the lawsuit from Energy Transfer claims:

In addition to its misinformation campaign, the Enterprise directly and indirectly funded eco-terrorists on the ground in North Dakota.  These groups formed their own outlaw camp among peaceful protestors gathered near Lake Oahe, and exploited the peaceful activities of these groups to further the Enterprise’s corrupt agenda by inducing and directing violent and destructive attacks against law enforcement as well as Plaintiffs’ property and personnel.

The Dakota Access pipeline was heavily protested throughout the fall, but ultimately was able to be completed after President Donald Trump signed a presidential memo allowing the massive project. Construction was completed in April 2017. Greenpeace’s response to the recently-filed lawsuit actually pointed out a connection between Trump and Energy Transfer–the developers are being represented by Marc Kasowitz’s law firm. Kasowitz is one of Trump’s personal lawyers. Greenpeace USA General Counsel Tom Wetterer released a statement that included: “It is yet another classic ‘Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation’ (SLAPP), not designed to seek justice, but to silence free speech through expensive, time-consuming litigation. This has now become a pattern of harassment by corporate bullies, with Trump’s attorneys leading the way.”

Representatives from other groups named in the suit, including the Sierra Club, Bold Iowa, and Mississippi Stand, dispute the allegations and say they still oppose the pipeline.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Developer Sues Greenpeace, Other Activist Groups appeared first on Law Street.

Haven’t checked out our top 10 law schools for intellectual property law yet? ICYMI–read up on that and more with Law Street’s best of the week.

Top 10 Law Schools for Intellectual Property Law

In 2014, Law Street Media released its first set of law school rankings, in response to the changing legal education industry. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Check out our top 10 law school picks for intellectual property law.

Officer Who Shot Philando Castile Says Smell of Marijuana Made Him Fear For His Life

The officer who fatally shot Philando Castile during a traffic stop last July said the smell of “burnt marijuana” coming from the vehicle made him fear for his life. The weak justification comes from a newly released transcript of Minnesota police officer Jeronimo Yanez’s interview with two special agents from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, the state agency investigating the shooting.

Judge Orders Further Environmental Review for Dakota Access Pipeline

The long legal battle over the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline looks like it will continue to drag on after a recent court ruling. Last week, U.S District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the pipeline, owned and constructed by Energy Transfer Partners, had not undergone an adequate environmental review by the Army Corps of Engineers and that a more thorough environmental review is needed.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

After almost a year of protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline, demonstrators at the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation went out in a literal blaze of glory Wednesday. Most of the occupants cleared the main protest camp ahead of a government-ordered 2 p.m. deadline, but not before first setting fire to their tents as part of an exit ceremony.

A handful of occupants remained on the grounds in a final act of defiance. Authorities arrested 10 people for not complying with evacuation orders, while a seven-year-old boy and 17-year-old girl at the site were hospitalized for burns.

The protest site in Cannon Ball, North Dakota resides close to where the government plans to build a 1,172-mile pipeline to transport crude oil through the Dakotas and Iowa to Illinois. The cause united environmentalists attempting to hinder the transportation of fossil fuels and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe who opposes the pipeline over concerns that it will destroy sacred sites and contaminate their drinking water.

Months of Pipeline Opposition

Over the summer, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe filed an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, arguing that it did not properly consult the tribe beforehand and violated the Clean Water Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. 

A judge later denied the injunction request in September. This prompted the company building the pipeline to counter sue the tribe for interfering with construction. Small protests at the designated pipeline locations began to expand in August following the countersuit.

In the fall, Standing Rock began to attract national attention as confrontations between demonstrators–who call themselves water protectors–and private security guards became violent. Protesters reported being pepper sprayed and bitten by security dogs, and a few officers also said they had been injured. 

In late October, military personnel and police in riot gear attempted to force protesters out of an encampment by using pepper-spray and firing beanbag rounds at the crowds. According to authorities, the protesters were attacking officers with firebombs and debris.

Social Media Intervenes and Tensions Escalate

News about the movement spread on social media as Facebook users from across the country “checked in” at Standing Rock to prevent police from finding protesters online (although the effectiveness of this effort was unclear) and show solidarity with those present at the site.

Tensions escalated even more the following month when authorities shot rubber bullets at demonstrators who had been praying, and sprayed water cannons on crowds right before Thanksgiving weekend as temperatures dropped below freezing.

Temporary Reprieve

Protesters achieved a temporary victory in December when the Obama administration and the Army announced that they would suspend work on the project and consider “alternative routes for the pipeline crossing.”

However, President Donald Trump made the decision to move forward with building the pipeline just a few days into his presidency, which brings us to today. Protesters were told to evacuate by Wednesday because of expected floods at the site. The state of North Dakota offered shelter and bus tickets to those exiting the campground.

But the protests aren’t over yet–the movement will just take place elsewhere. In March, a group of activists are planning to march on Washington, D.C. for four days, where they will set up a prayer camp on the National Mall.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dakota Access Pipeline Protesters Leave Campsite Before Evacuation Deadline appeared first on Law Street.

For many Americans, “I stand with Standing Rock” signs and chants have become all too familiar. Over the past year, the Dakota Access Pipeline has remained an extremely controversial project, putting water rights and tribal lands front and center in oversaturated news cycles. Former President Obama had halted construction of the pipeline until more environmental impacts could be considered, but the new Trump Administration has once again given the contentious project the green light. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe has vowed to shut down the project by any means necessary, indicating an uphill battle ahead for both sides of the project.

Dakota Access Pipeline Project

Priced at $3.7 billion, the Dakota Access Pipeline is a 1,172-mile-long underground oil pipeline project designed to transport Bakken shale oil. The pipeline is poised to transport 470,000 barrels of crude oil a day across four states, from North Dakota through South Dakota and Iowa and into Illinois. According to those in favor of the project, it is supposed to be a more cost-effective method of transporting oil than doing so by truck or train; almost 70 percent of Bakken oil is transported by train. Proponents also contend that the pipeline will help the U.S. gain energy independence.

The pipeline is extremely controversial due to its potential impact on the environment. Numerous tribes have expressed opposition to the project including the Meskwaki, Standing Rock Sioux, and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes. Initially, the pipeline route was intended to cross the Missouri River just north of Bismarck, North Dakota. It was later rerouted closer to tribal lands, a decision criticized by many as environmental racism.

According to the chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, the pipeline was rerouted closer to tribal lands when other North Dakota residents objected to the proximity of an oil pipeline to their communities and water sources. The portion of the Missouri River, where the pipeline will cross when completed, is the Standing Rock tribe’s primary source of drinking water. To date, most of the pipeline has already been built, but the section nearest to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe is still unfinished.

Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and Treaty of Fort Laramie

Opponents have argued that the pipeline would be in direct violation of the Sioux’s national sovereignty, as delegated in the signings of two treaties–the 1851 Treaty of Traverse des Sioux and the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie.

In 1851, the U.S. government and the Sioux in Minnesota signed the Treaty of Traverse des Sioux, which ceded large portions of territory to the federal government. In exchange for annuities in the form of cash and goods, the Sioux agreed under the treaty to move to land along the Minnesota River. White settlers were interested in obtaining control of the land for agriculture and also wanted the Sioux to convert from their nomadic lifestyle to European-American settled farming. However, violations of the treaty in the form of inadequate payments from the U.S., food shortages, and subsequent famines lead to a breaking point in the form of the Dakota War of 1862.

Another influential agreement was the Treaty of Fort Laramie, known as the Sioux Treaty of 1868, between the U.S. and multiple bands of the Lakota people. Signed on April 29, 1868, it guaranteed Lakota ownership of the Black Hills and hunting rights in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana. While the land that the Dakota Access pipeline would cross is technically just north of the Standing Rock Sioux reservation, the tribe argues that the land was taken illegally from them via the Sioux Treaty of 1868.

The affected tribes in Standing Rock contend that these treaties are legally-binding and have been ratified by the U.S. Senate; therefore, the oil companies and federal government have failed to recognize and respect the Sioux’s sovereign rights.

Easements and Eminent Domain

While there are many people who support the project, citing job creation as a positive byproduct of pipeline completion, others disapprove of  how the project was implemented. Many Native American landowners have had their land taken away from them against their will to clear a route for the pipeline using eminent domain. Eminent domain is the governmental power to take private property for public use and is the most common way to grant legal right of way easement. An easement is an encumbrance on private property; while landowners still retain ownership of their property, they lose the ability to freely use the portion of the property with the easement on it. U.S. law requires that landowners receive just compensation for the use of their land.

“Standing Rock 4” Courtesy of unitedchurchofchrist : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

Other Controversies

The Standing Rock Sioux tribe has vehemently opposed the project, arguing that it violates the Treaty of Traverses des Sioux and the Treaty of Fort Laramie, as noted previously. The tribe and a number of its supporters contend that the project will contaminate drinking water, as well as damage sacred burial sites, dubbing the pipeline the “Black Snake.”  The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which has jurisdiction over a small portion of the pipeline, suspended the project last year, after months of intense protests and controversies.

At the protest’s peak, roughly 10,000 people had joined the campsites and more than 200 Native American tribes pledged their support. In 2016, it was the largest congregation of indigenous people in the U.S. in decades, maybe even centuries. U.S. military veterans, several high-profile actors, politicians, artists, filmmakers, and other activists all lent their support.

“Standing Rock 5” Courtesy of unitedchurchofchrist : License: (CC BY-SA 2.0)

The protests surrounding the Dakota Access Pipeline have not always been peaceful. According to reports, protesters have supposedly started fires, attempted to block roads, and have thrown petrol bombs at police. Police have also been accused of instigating violence and utilizing excessive force. Protesters have been attacked with pepper spray, freezing water, sound cannons, bean bag rounds, and rubber bullets. Police have also arrested hundreds of protestors on charges of criminal trespassing, rioting, and other felonies. At one point, the United Nations spoke out regarding the use of excessive force at the protest site.

Future of the Pipeline Project

In February 2017, the Trump Administration granted the final easement for that remaining section of the project. The Obama Administration, through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, had put the project on hold pending an environmental impact statement. Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed an executive memorandum on January 24, 2017, mandating that the pipeline project proceed. If all goes according to plan, that last 1.5 mile stretch of the pipeline will be completed in less than 90 days.

This hasn’t deterred activists and water protectors from fighting against its completion. Several marches in major cities, including a large-scale “Native Nations” march in Washington D.C., are currently in the works. Seattle’s city council also voted to divest more than $3 billion from Wells Fargo, citing the bank’s role as a major lender to the Dakota Access Pipeline as one of its reasons. The city of Davis, California soon followed suit, committing to withdraw its $124 million from the bank by the end of 2017. Wells Fargo has maintained that it is legally obligated to its contract with the pipeline.

Moreover, a legal challenge against the pipeline between the Standing Rock and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes and the federal government has been ongoing since 2016. The lawsuit contends that the Dakota Access Pipeline is an unlawful encroachment on the tribe’s heritage; it argues that the pipeline “might damage or destroy sites of great cultural and historical significance.” The National Historic Preservation Act, Clean Water Act, and Rivers and Harbors Act are the key laws at the crux of Standing Rock’s argument.

The tribe has stated on its website that if all legal actions and protest marches fail, resulting in construction of the pipeline, it will seek to “shut the pipeline operations down.” How that will exactly occur is still uncertain. One thing is abundantly clear: the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its many allies have no intention of standing down against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Conclusion

Despite clear opposition and legitimate concerns regarding the Dakota Access Pipeline, the project is scheduled to move forward and be completed in a few months. The project will certainly bring more jobs to the area and transport oil; however, it is absolutely imperative that these water sources and sacred tribal lands are not tarnished by the project. Moreover, it is critically important that protests over its construction remain peaceful, leaving violence and human rights violations behind.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The “Black Snake”: Unpacking the Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Law Street.

Your topic of the day: voter fraud. It was a hot debate during the election, and President Donald Trump has falsely claimed “millions of people” voted illegally. Now the Supreme Court has announced it will not hear an appeal from Texas officials right now, who wanted to reinstate a controversial voter ID law. The law has been deemed unconstitutional by a lower court, but could still end up in front of the Supreme Court at a later date.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump Was Serious About the Border Wall, Okays Controversial Pipelines

Today, President Donald Trump will begin taking steps toward actually building that wall along the Mexican border. This undertaking would be financed with federal money. But it’s unclear when the project will start, how long the wall would be, and where exactly the money would come from. This was the first campaign promise Trump made, back when he announced he would run for president in 2015. The wall proposal has been cheered by his fans and harshly criticized by his opponents. But the former Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, Gil Kerlikowske, doesn’t see the point of a physical wall. “The border and migration issues are just unbelievably complex,” he said to CNN. “And a simple answer to a complex problem is most assuredly the wrong answer.”

Donald Trump could announce that the wall has been completed, Mexico paid for it, and it’s invisible.
20% of Americans would believe him.

— Luke Adams (@luketadams) January 25, 2017

Trump also cleared the Keystone and Dakota oil pipeline projects that had been halted by President Barack Obama. This doesn’t really come as a surprise as Trump has reportedly close ties with the gas industry, and even owned stocks in the company constructing the Dakota pipeline. The Dakota pipeline has been the focus of massive protests all fall and winter–it’s likely those protests will continue.

A few hundred people are outside the White House now protesting Trump’s executive actions on #KeystoneXL and #DakotaPipeline pic.twitter.com/TUjUmkecOr

— Kira Lerner (@kira_lerner) January 24, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

No Dakota Pipeline…For Now

There’s been a lot of bad news lately, but yesterday the people won a small victory over big corporations when the U.S. Army Corps announced that it would not grant the easement for the Dakota Pipeline to be built near the Standing Rock reservation. Protesters and Native Americans have blocked the construction of the oil pipeline for months and endured clashes with the police that have left many injured.

The army said in a statement: “Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do.” It will look at alternative routes for where the pipeline can go instead.

President-elect Donald Trump, who is only about a month away from moving into the White House, is a big supporter of the pipeline, so this certainly doesn’t mean the fight is over. But for now, many people are celebrating.

We will forever remember Dec. 4th,2016 as a day of victory, but as we celebrate today, tomorrow we continue to work towards a better future. pic.twitter.com/uP2a2z1ua4

— Urban Native Era (@UrbanNativeEra) December 5, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 5, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Motive For OSU Attack Still Unclear

Yesterday, a student at Ohio State University posted a rant online saying “America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially Muslim Ummah [community]. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that.” Then he drove a car straight into a crowd at Ohio State, before getting out and stabbing multiple people. Abdul Razak Ali Artan was only 18 years old and police are still investigating a possible motive for the deed. None of Artan’s victims died, but 11 people were taken to the hospital and Artan was killed by the police.

Now many people fear that this will increase tensions between the left and right and that Islamophobia and anti-refugee sentiments will get a boost, as Artan was a Somali refugee. And certain controversial political figures got in on that debate right away:

Brutal attack on Americans by Somali refugee today demands urgent electoral reform! Next time, we must be allowed to vote for Trump twice.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 29, 2016

Watch as Ohio State University stops trending now that twitter knows it was a Somali Muslim refugee student taking an Americans kid’s spot

— Jared Wyand (@JaredWyand) November 28, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Paul Ryan Renominated as Speaker of the House

Yesterday, House Republicans voted to renominate Paul Ryan as House Speaker. After the unanimous vote, Ryan, who previously had run-ins with President-elect Donald Trump during the campaign, emphasized unity in the Republican Party. He became speaker after John Boehner resigned at the end of last year, so this would be his first full term holding the position. The next step for Ryan is to win the vote in early January.

It is a tremendous honor to be nominated by my colleagues to serve as Speaker of the House. Now it’s time to go big. pic.twitter.com/ot7fqYEGun

— Paul Ryan (@SpeakerRyan) November 15, 2016

“Welcome to the dawn of a new, unified Republican government,” Mr. Ryan told reporters Tuesday.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 16, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

A coalition of environmental groups from around the world sent a letter on Monday to banks that have loaned, collectively, $2.5 billion to help finance the polarizing Dakota Access pipeline. Johan Frijns, Director of the Netherlands-based group BankTrack, wrote the letter, which was signed by 25 other organizations spanning all corners of the globe, from China to Australia, and the U.S. to Germany.

“The world is closely watching how all actors involved will deal with the situation, including the banks that provide financial support to the project,” Frijns wrote. The letter was addressed to Nigel Beck, Chair of the Equator Principles Association, a consortium of investors that includes some of the biggest financiers of the pipeline: Citigroup, Wells Fargo, TD Bank, and Mizuho.

Included in the letter are requests for the banks to chew on during their annual meeting in London on Monday and Tuesday. “All further loan disbursements to the project are put on hold,” the letter says, adding the groups expect an “immediate halt to the construction of the pipeline and all associated structures, until all outstanding issues are resolved to the full satisfaction of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.”

The letter is the latest protest against the pipeline, which has been a lightning rod for activists and members of Native American communities (and social media) since August. If completed, the pipeline would run from the northwest tip of North Dakota to Illinois, sending nearly half a million barrels of crude oil every day through its 1,172-mile route. It snakes through sacred Sioux lands, and some argue it threatens local water sources and can pollute the air. Supporters of the pipeline say it will bring thousands of local jobs, and is a cleaner way of transporting petroleum than any alternatives.

Over 100 people have been arrested–including journalists–as police and state troopers from around the country have struggled to combat vast crowds, sometimes resorting to rubber bullets and pepper spray to kick people off the land, which is owned by Energy Transfer Partners, the beneficiary of the banks addressed in the environmental group’s letter.

Environmental groups have had some successes in past battles with banks. Over the last two years, several international banks–Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and ING–have pulled out of projects involving mountaintop removal mining, a practice that is potentially damaging to the environment, after facing pressure from environmental groups. Last week, amid the growing national and international outcry, President Obama said the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal body that approved the project, is considering an alternative route.

“We are going to let it play out for several more weeks and determine whether or not this can be resolved in a way that I think is properly attentive to the traditions of the first Americans,” Obama said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Global Environmental Groups Band Together to Oppose Dakota Access Pipeline appeared first on Law Street.

The Internet’s New Darling

After the debate, uncommitted voter and power plant operator Ken Bone from Illinois became an internet sensation. After asking the presidential nominees a question about their energy policies, he was suddenly all over the web thanks to his mild manners, cute mustache, and bright red sweater. The sweater in question actually sold out online.

BREAKING: The Ken Bone sweater has sold out pic.twitter.com/q9FnjeuNPa

— Darren Rovell (@darrenrovell) October 10, 2016

“Yesterday I had seven Twitter followers and two of them were my grandma,” he said about his very sudden rise to fame. He also said he was supposed to wear a green suit to the debate, but that since he gained some weight he ripped the pants when getting into his car and had to “move to plan B.”

via GIPHY

Ken actually said that he had leaned toward voting for Trump, but that Hillary’s answers and cool way of handling Trump’s personal attacks impressed him. But can’t we just vote for Bone for president?

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 11, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Burning Man Bourgeoisie Raided By Revolutionaries

Burning Man, an annual music festival focused on peace and love has been certifiably ruined after some Burners claim “hooligans” sabotaged their experience by cutting power lines and raiding their camp of luxury goods.

Traditionally, Burning Man, founded in 1986, was intended to be in the spirit of “radical self-reliance,” living off the land, and finding harmony with strangers. However, the event has become overrun with the spawn of the megarich who have come to enjoy Burning Man as some sort of elitist, exclusive desert resort. They glamp their way in and out of the place.

Revolution against ‘rich parasites’ at utopian Burning Man Festival as ‘hooligans’ attack luxury camp https://t.co/wAiuRCKt6n

— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) September 4, 2016

A lot of traditionalists believe those campers who were attacked deserved it because they are erasing the core of what Burning Man was supposed to be.

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.