The Judge Did Not Throw Out the Case
When he vacated the injunction, Judge Sinz explained that decision this way:
"I feel I have no choice but to dissolve
the temporary restraining order. You've raised some interesting questions but
you've taken their money and given them an easement. And you knew all this when
you did it. The case will proceed and I'll continue to consider it."
TransCanada has argued that Bishop is bound by the agreement he signed and for which he was paid, which is a strong contractual argument and the company has a countersuit to that effect. But Bishop's argument that TransCanada committed fraud -- that the company lied about the pipeline and used coercion to make him give them an easement -- could defeat the contractual argument if the judge finds Bishop's evidence persuasive and credible.
A TransCanada said after the hearing, referring to Bishop: "he agreed to the easement and he knew what would be in the pipe." But they will have to prove that to the judge's satisfaction.
The fundamental issue underlying the name-calling arguments, is whether the contents of the pipeline will be "crude oil" as defined by law -- or not.
There is no question that TransCanada is building the pipeline for tar sands oil -- also known diluted bitumen. There is no question that bitumen is a solid, that it must be treated in an environmentally unfriendly method to become liquid, and that it must be heated to remain liquid as it passes through the pipeline.
Tar
Sands Oil, or Diluted Bitumin, Is Toxic
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).