Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumTexas Homeowner Battles $3 Million Defamation Lawsuit For Exposing Fracking Company’s Pollution
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/08/2913651/steve-lipsky-range-resources/Steve Lipsky, a Texas homeowner, has found himself at the center of a $3 million lawsuit for defamation from an oil and gas company, after he exposed the company for contaminating his water supply with methane and benzene.
Despite his attempts to avert the expensive legal entanglement, Julie Dermansky reports at DeSmogBlog that last month the Fort Worth Court of Appeals allowed the defamation case to move forward.
Lipsky sued Range Resources originally in 2011, prompted by an Environmental Protection Agency order that Range Resources endangered Texas residents health. His case was dismissed, because the presiding judge claimed there was no jurisdiction, but Range Resources took the unusual step of countersuing Lipsky for libel. It alleged that Lipsky and others conspired to get the EPA and the media to wrongly label and prosecute Range as a polluter of the environment. The company said that his public video of Lipsky lighting on fire a methane-filled hose escaping from his water well was an unfair portrayal, even though Lipsky maintains he can still set the water on fire in a video from October.
The hose was used in the interest of safety, not to deceive anyone, Lipsky told DeSmogBlog, before lighting fire at the end of the hose again. But according to Range Resources and the judge who dismissed Lipskys lawsuit in 2012, Lipsky could not possibly light his water on fire. The video was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media with a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning, the judge wrote at the time.
(more)
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 916 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (6)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Texas Homeowner Battles $3 Million Defamation Lawsuit For Exposing Fracking Company’s Pollution (Original Post)
Bill USA
Nov 2013
OP
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)1. Bring a jar of that water in to court
Shake it up and light it off.
That should take care of that shit.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)2. It's not defamation if it's the truth.
[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]The court better do the right thing here.
stuntcat
(12,022 posts)3. I'm sick of people saying how wonderful and great humans are
this suit will probably win.