Chevron wins case to jail lawyer Steven Donziger
offshore-technology.com
offshore-technology.com
> He was also disbarred from working in New York in 2019, and has been in home detention since August that same year.
This was hitherto unheard of for a lawyer. He was not a flight risk, this was about punishing anyone who would sue large corporate interests.
The linked article is much better with salient details:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawy...
> In one of the stranger episodes in this saga, Chevron relocated Alberto Guerra, an Ecuadorian judge, and his family to the US, paid for his health insurance and a car while meeting with him more than 50 times before he provided testimony that Donziger discussed the bribe with him at a Quito restaurant. Guerra has since admitted that his testimony was exaggerated in parts, untrue in others.
> Donziger was made liable for millions of dollars in Chevron’s legal costs and the company was granted seizure of his laptop and cellphone. When he appealed this, claiming the devices contained sensitive client information, the judge, Lewis Kaplan, hit him with criminal contempt charges, upheld on appeal, that led to his house arrest.
Does that sound above board? Not like persecution of someone who was successful in securing a judgement against Chevron? Conflicts of interest somehow abound in such a critical case.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised, being a powerful multinational company is a pretty good legal tactic.
[EDIT] I posted about this twice before as well, guess it was much more interesting this time.
It's shocking how many other comments in this HN thread will just believe anything they read in this piece...
Why ruin a perfectly fine comment with some us vs them toxicity?
Michael K. (Mike) Wirth Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Ronald D. Sugar Lead Director Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Northrop Grumman Corporation
Wanda M. Austin Retired President and Chief Executive Officer, The Aerospace Corporation
John B. Frank Vice Chairman, Oaktree Capital Group, LLC
Alice P. Gast President, Imperial College London
Enrique Hernandez, Jr. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
Marillyn A. Hewson Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, Lockheed Martin Corporation
Jon M. Huntsman Jr. Vice Chair Policy, Ford Motor Company
Charles W. Moorman Senior advisor to Amtrak and Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Norfolk Southern Corporation
Dambisa F. Moyo Co-principal, Versaca Investments
Debra Reed-Klages Retired Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, Sempra Energy
D. James Umpleby III Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Caterpillar Inc. learn more about committee memberships corporate officers
Chevron executive committee members
Michael K. (Mike) Wirth Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Paul R. Antebi
Paul R. Antebi Vice President and General Tax Counsel
Eimear P. Bonner* Vice President, Chief Technology Officer
Pierre R. Breber* Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Mary A. Francis Corporate Secretary and Chief Governance Officer
Joseph C. Geagea* Executive Vice President
Jeff B. Gustavson Vice-President, Lower Carbon Energies
David A. Inchausti Vice President and Controller
James W. Johnson* Executive Vice President, Upstream Navin K. Mahajan
Navin K. Mahajan Vice President and Treasurer
Rhonda J. Morris* Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer
Mark A. Nelson* Executive Vice President, Downstream & Chemicals
Bruce L. Niemeyer Vice President, Strategy & Sustainability Colin E. Parfitt
Colin Parfitt* Vice President, Midstream
R. Hewitt Pate* Vice President and General Counsel
J. David Payne Vice President, Health, Safety and Environment
Jay R. Pryor Vice President, Business Development
Albert (Al) Williams Vice President, Corporate Affairs
For what it's worth I didn't read the article and come away thinking well of Chevron. I'm sure it's biased, but I read it and was shocked by his treatment, came here to read more.
https://www.theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/Chevron-Ecu...
I've never heard anyone express this opinion before. Can you explain why? Like, _any_ activism?
The reason that so many statues depict justice with a blindfold is that the law shouldn't care whether you're an activist or anyone else — the law applies equally to us all.
OP seems to be someone who cares about blind justice. "Symmetric" isn't the word I would choose, but I think you see how it has nothing to do with activism and everything to do with fairness and equality before the law.
They're not mutually exclusive, which I assume is why GP asked.
Activists usually oppose forces with an outsized legal sway which puts the activists in huge risks of being unfairly treated, as we know the law isn't as blind as it should be.
It's not that they should recieve special treatment, but merely that both the law and us observers should be extra vigilant that justice is indeed served.
In theory. Yet Julian Assange is in prison for journalism and Prince Andrew isn't in prison for raping a child.
If the system didnt need to be kept honest we wouldnt need activists.
Or is it the idea of the stereotyped hippy/conspiracy theorist whacko as the 'activist' you oppose?
I'm sure most hope it will be a cancellable offense in the near future. My opposing goal is to inject skepticism into people's perception of activists.
> It has unbelievable "why don't they just eat cake?" feeling to it.
That's sweet of you to say, thanks.
Without activists, bad things don’t go away. I’m not gonna list things because we can both think of some terrible things that were brought to light, ended, or significantly reduced thanks to activists. Sure, there are activists who I would argue are trying to make the world worse, or activists who can be offensive, or just plain bad at being an activist.
But what I hear when people say “I don’t like activists” is “I’m fine with the way things are”, which sounds bad because “the way things are” can be so, so horrific for so many people and animals. (I’m on of those vegan animal rights activists you hate so much ;)
I'd become an emigrant, activist, or terrorist.
> Or is it the idea of the stereotyped hippy/conspiracy theorist whacko as the 'activist' you oppose?
No, I just don't care for activists in the general sense. I'd prefer to live in a generally liberal nation with some form of hegemony again, rather than miring through constant quibbling over every topic with the ultimate cause of disagreement being fundamental differences in belief.
It is only a judge in a court who can decide if a crime has occurred. If the police or other state authorities decide not to take a crime to court, that doesn't mean one hasn't occurred. That's why anybody has a right to take anyone else to court for the court to decide.
It means that you don't need fair and unbiased police or prosecutors - because anyone else could (theoretically) do their work for them if they decline to.
This is a very questionable article source to use for such an important matter. The author (Scarlett Evans) apparently almost exclusively publishes pieces in industry specific papers of a seemingly little informational value or at least it seems like just rewriting stuff others have done [1], with a theme of being pro-industry in almost all cases. There are quite a few better articles floating around by more serious journalists/outlets with crucial details that this website seems to leave out on purpose. [see refs]
While the offshore technology article basically leaves it there, in other interviews he has given and other articles, the details are explained further:
a) "He faces up to six months in prison after having already spent an unprecedented 787 days, by the day of his sentencing, on house arrest. Federal courts have never before ordered the pretrial detention of a lawyer without a criminal record for a misdemeanor charge." [6]
b) The contempt of court sentence stems from this: "As part of a civil RICO trial, Chevron demanded and was granted sweeping access to Donzinger’s phone and computer. Donzinger appealed this ruling, arguing that it would give Chevron access to information protected by attorney-client privilege. Donzinger stated he would only turn over his phone and computer if the order was upheld on appeal. While appealing the decision, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan brought six counts of criminal contempt against Donzinger." [7] Donziger claims [8] that the contempt charge was unprecedented; "no lawyer has even been charged with contempt of court for appealing an order".
c) The order, if not the contempt of court sentence, would make more sense if the surface level story used to justify the order was more credible. The claim the countersuit was based on and hence the order was that he had been withholding information and bribing a judge, to which Donziger responds "they basically framed me, they paid a witness 2 million dollars, Alberto Guerra, he was coached for 53 days by their lawyers, he came into Kaplan's court, Kaplan denied me a jury, and he claimed that he was in some meeting where I offered a bribe to the trial judge in Ecuador. Totally false, [it's] been rejected by 28 appelate judges in Ecuador and Canada." [8] edit: as others have cited, Guerra has later openly admitted falsification of his testimony.
d) Furthermore, Donziger claims the judge himself likely has conflicts of interest that make him a non-neutral party, and that his conduct was unconstitutional.
"Even more bizaare, by law Kaplan had to take his charges to the US Attorneys office, the regular federal prosecutor here in Manhattan, known as the SDNY, a famous office. They turned down the case. They declined to prosecute me, certainly concluding the charges were baseless." Of course he can't know that, so in more recent interviews he has not added this but I'm including it since it's in the video I was transcribing... He continues, "So Kaplan, rather than just stop there, appointed a private law firm to prosecute me in the name of the government. He hid the fact that this law firm, called Seward & Kissel, had Chevron as a client, as well as many other major oil and gas companies. So I was being prosecuted, not by the US Government, but by a private law firm, that worked for Chevron, essentially Chevron. So when I say it's the first corporate prosecution that's what I mean." [8] When I compared his statement to others, it seems the main defense is that Chevron is now a former client of the lawfirm; "Kaplan tapped attorneys the private law firm Seward & Kissel—which counted Chevron as a former client—to prosecute Donziger before assigning the case to his colleague, Senior U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska. Neither the civil nor the criminal trial faced a jury, over Donziger’s objections. ... Now represented by University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, Donziger’s appeal attacks the constitutionality of Judge Kaplan’s appointment of a private prosecutor after the U.S. Attorney’s office declined his case." [9]
For those curious as I was, I found a video where he explains how he was denied a jury trial. Apparently there has been an exception created where if a judge agrees to limit a sentence to 6 months or less, the judge can deny a jury trial and try the case themselves.
Donziger goes on the say that the newly appointed judge by Kaplan, Loretta Preska, may have her own potential conflicts of interest. "She's a member of the Federalist Society, to which Chevron is one of the major donors." [8]
When asked recently what he wanted done, after complaining about the ability to hold lifetime appointed judges accountable, he asked that people contact their congressperson and Merrick Garland and demand that the prosecution be taken over by the DoJ and that he should be released, saying "I'm probably the only lawyer in US history essentially begging the DoJ to prosecute me." [11]
He warns "This is a playbook Jimmy, I mean I think Chevron and the other big fossil fuel majors are gonna use this playbook if they can get away with it with me they are going to use it against other activists." [12]
In discussion with Chris Hedges, he said "I'm the only person in the history of the state of New York, disbarred without a hearing. Based on findings in a civil case. In other words, Kaplan's findings, based on this false witness testimony, were used to disbar me and ... the bar grievance process ruled I had no right to challenge Kaplans findings, they applied whats called the doctrine of collateral stoppal, which is crazy. ... Thats a doctrine that means you can't relitigate issues already decided, but Kaplan didn't decide the case, the Ecuador court did. So you have this bizaare situation where you have 28 judges in Ecuador and Canada who validated the Ecuador judgement. Kaplan claimed it was a fraud based on false witness testimony, yet it's Kaplans findings that the bar used to disbar me without a hearing, I mean it's disgusting. ... There is a long history by the way in the United States of using the bar disciplinary process for political purposes to attack progressive lawyers or laywers who challenge the status quo. I mean this has happened to lawyers who represented Vietnam protestors, or lawyers who represented people charged in the red scare in the 1950's were drummed out of the bar constantly, it's controlled by the big corporate law firms... Isn't it ironic Chris that I lost my license, the Chevron lawyers who made up evidence to frame me are still practicing, you know I'm going to jail, the Chevron executives who made the decision to pollute Ecuador resulting in the deaths of thousands of people and the decimation of indigenous groups. They live with impunity. I held them accountable and I'm going to prison, I mean go figure."
Sidenote: I found an interesting side story about the lack of coverage of the story by the larger journalistic publications referenced a few times, enough that I think it warrants being brought up. "First I've gotten a lot of play in the independent media and I want to salute all the journalists including you Jimmy who have had me on and written about this; The Nation, The Intercept, Chris Hedges, Robert Scheer, Will Menaker, ... Katie Halper, I'm missing many but it's just been really amazing. Now, having said that, big media has totally ignored the story. I mean I have journalists flying over from Germany 4000 miles to sit in my living room, and the New York Times headquarters is a 30 minute walk from my apartement and they won't even come talk to me. Now I later found out that one of Chevrons lead lawyers targetting me, Ted Boutrous Jr., [I found that he also is a member of the Federalist society] who has literally made millions and millions of dollars from Chevron for his work in trying to lock me up and demonize me, um, also represents the New York Times, and I think frankly the Gibson Dunn lawfirm where Boutrous works, Chevrons main lawfirm that's attacking me, New York Times is a major client, [a] total conflict of interest. We've called on the NYT to file Gibson Dunn and Boutrous, but I think that goes a long way explaining why they haven't covered the story. Now, neither has any of the networks. I mean I did an interview with ABC news, they were preparing a story for their website, suddenly the guy just dissapears and stopped answering my phone calls. So I think the fact Chevron is a major advertiser has a lot of power, and these corporate media outlets are so dependent now on the fossil fuel industry for advertising, and I might say deceptive advertising ... that has a lot to do with why the big media is ignoring the story." [8]
1. https://muckrack.com/scarlett-evans/articles
2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/steven-donzi...
3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawy...
4. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/energy-environme...
5. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/business/federal-judge-ru...
6. https://theintercept.com/2021/09/29/steven-donziger-sentenci...
7. https://www.rightsanddissent.org/news/human-rights-lawyer-st...
8. https://youtu.be/R6kMtNjoR28?t=250
9. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/anti-chevron-crusader-s...
10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2K3ypt3VFc
This is pretty standard as noted in the book Manufacturing Consent.
Oil polluters should be held responsible for their acts. At the same time, bribery, fraud, withholding and fabricating evidence must also not be allowed to stand
After the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to prosecute the case, Judge Kaplan took the rare step of appointing a private law firm, Seward & Kissel, to prosecute Mr. Donziger in the name of the U.S. government
> After the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York declined to prosecute the case, Judge Kaplan took the rare step of appointing a private law firm, Seward & Kissel, to prosecute Mr. Donziger in the name of the U.S. government.
So the real problem here is people not reading the article, jumping to conclusions, and spreading misinformation in the comments (on HN?!). And probably the SDNY being too biased to enforce the law against a lawyer who cheated in a case against an oil company. Anyone who's been following the SDNY in the news for a while shouldn't be surprised about that.
> Kaplan has been accused of displaying a pro-corporate bias in the case.[12] At the hearing, Alberto Guerra, a former Ecuadorian judge, testified for Chevron, claiming Donziger bribed him and others to win the case by fraud. Guerra's testimony was cited by Kaplan as a key factor in his decision. In 2015, Guerra claimed his testimony against Donziger had been largely a lie.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_A._Kaplan#Chevron_vs_Don...
interview : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbpptFKaXc
> In 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that the $9.5 billion judgment in Ecuador was marked by fraud and corruption and "should not be recognised or enforced by the courts of other States."[18][19][20] The amount Ecuador must pay to Chevron to compensate for damages is yet to be determined. The award found that Ecuador violated its obligations under international treaties, investment agreements and international law. The Court of Arbitration's findings of fraudulent activities included that the evidence placed before the Court is "the most thorough documentary, video, and testimonial proof of fraud ever put before an arbitral tribunal", that the plaintiffs championed by the film actually were engaged in blackmail and bribery of Ecuadorian judges. Their efforts triggered an order to appoint an "expert" friendly to the plaintiffs, that Ecuadorian government prosecutors "actively cooperated" with the plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs bribed the "experts" and ghostwrote their report and that the plaintiffs paid a retired judge to draft the acting judge's orders—and that the same judge solicited bribes that Chevron refused to pay.
Donzinger was disbarred for his actionns:
> In 2014, Kaplan ruled that the judgment in Ecuador was invalid because Donziger had achieved it through offenses against legal ethics, including racketeering, extortion, wire fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, judicial bribery, coercion, witness tampering, and arranging for expert's reports to be ghostwritten
Chevron is certainly not the world's nicest company (to put it kindly) but why should anybody lose sleep over a lawyer who a US court found engaged in illegal behavior to shake Chevron down? If anything, Donzinger is lucky that he wasn't prosecuted by the Southern District of New York.
If there was a legitimate case against Chevron for its past actions in Ecuador, it seems to me that Donziger has basically poisoned the well (no pun intended) and ensured that there will never be justice in any meaningful sense.
You might have a different perspective on what a "banana republic" actually looks like.
The court was really, really pissed off with Donziger for ignoring it for 7 years. DA doesn’t care about contempt of court for a measly 6mo sentence. Don’t piss off the court!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Kaplan's_2014_...
[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/neye7z/chevrons-star-witness...
* "Guerra on many occasions has acted deceitfully and broken the law […] but that does not necessarily mean that it should be disregarded wholesale."*
The star witness was playing both sides. It’s hard to take his word on anything. This was a judgement call. The judge decided that the evidence brought-forth was substantial enough in nature.
There is no precedent to support Kaplan or Preska not recusing themselves, or at least letting the legal procedures as written play out (i.e. random assignment of a judge)
Nevertheless, the alleged “evidence” of such a bribe is verifiably traced itself to… a bribe, by Chevron. For a case brought by an official and presided over by an US judge who accept bribes (sorry, lobbyist money) from… Chevron.
From a comment above:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawy... > In one of the stranger episodes in this saga, Chevron relocated Alberto Guerra, an Ecuadorian judge, and his family to the US, paid for his health insurance and a car while meeting with him more than 50 times before he provided testimony that Donziger discussed the bribe with him at a Quito restaurant. Guerra has since admitted that his testimony was exaggerated in parts, untrue in others.
I guess by your logic the judge also shouldn’t be pissed off if you start blasting music in the courtroom?
What is this part referring to?
https://fedsoc.org/contributors/loretta-preska
This is a tweet from Donzinger himself, so obviously don't take it at face value if you don't want to, but this provides a good jumping off point for further research:
https://twitter.com/sdonziger/status/1376676895001997312?lan...
This was not a “flimsy” case.
"The Working Group recalls that it is inherent to the proper exercise of judicial power that it be exercised by an authority that is independent, objective and impartial in relation to the issues dealt with, as asserted by the Human Rights Committee in relation to article 9 (3) of the Covenant. In the present case, the Working Group is of the view that Judge P did not act in a manner which was independent, objective and impartial in relation to Mr. Donziger’s case. Consequently, the Working Group concludes that the imposition of pretrial detention upon Mr. Donziger was in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. "
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/Opinions/Se...
But then I must admit, that I do not have a very high opinion of "arbitration courts" in general, as often they seem to have various conflicts of interests with regards to how they earn money by being paid by parties bringing the cases (i.e. deciding against the interests of a party which usually provides high-income cases, would risk the court's own financing).
The amount of conflicting information on the Donziger case is quite staggering but maybe quite natural given that there is so much money at stake.
EDIT: updated to quote from and link to original working group document.
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Detention/Opinions/Se...
https://www.theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/Chevron-Ecu...
If you actually are interested in understanding the situation I would encourage you to take a deep breath clear your mind of preconceptions and read it. In the real world every situation is not Black and White; Good vs. Evil, sometimes everyone involved in a situation is a scumbag.
It's entirely possible that both sides here are wrong, just in different ways. If you don't like a ruling you can appeal, but simply defying the court is never a good look and it doesn't normally work out well for any lawyer who tries it.
That's not a real court. That's one of those joke courts with judges appointed by the opposing parties and one who's appointed through a completely obscure process without outside supervision. Their livelihood depends on being chosen frequently. Judge Judy, but with larger stakes.
Right. It's not like the courts in Ecuador, which are "real" courts.
The case was already active before Donzinger and Chevron had already successfully bribed its way out of it.
Also note that the conviction, while ruled "fraudulent", was not overturned.
The judge who convicted Donzinger has requested him to hand over his laptop and phone to Chevron, obviously in an attempt to further discredit him. This is a poor imitation of justice, which should taint your blind trust in US courts.
Chevron was in Ecuador through a subsidiary that had a partnership with Ecuador's state-owned oil company, which owned the majority (62.5%) of the partnership. Chevron's subsidiary completed environmental remediation required by the Ecuadorian government and signed a settlement agreement with the government in 1995 releasing it from all environmental claims.
Oil extraction is an ugly, dirty business, and it's not uncommon for countries like Ecuador to sacrifice the health of their citizens so that state-owned oil companies and their international partners can profit, but given the facts above, maybe the Ecuadorians should look to their government and state-owned oil company for recourse?
> The case was already active before Donzinger and Chevron had already successfully bribed its way out of it.
That's a big claim. Any evidence to back it up?
> Also note that the conviction, while ruled "fraudulent", was not overturned.
Why would you expect a court in a banana republic plagued by corruption to overturn a fraudulent judgment?
> The judge who convicted Donzinger has requested him to hand over his laptop and phone to Chevron, obviously in an attempt to further discredit him.
No, he was ordered to turn over his devices so that Chevron could locate his assets. This sort of thing happens when you lose in court and the opposing party wants to collect on a damages award.
There was a reason the trial was held in Ecuador only - Chevron insisted that it would be held there. That plan kind of backfired but now they insist on the corruption in Ecuador to claim the judgment is null. Make of that what you wish.
> No, he was ordered to turn over his devices so that Chevron could locate his assets. This sort of thing happens when you lose in court and the opposing party wants to collect on a damages award.
Are you saying that Chevron, a multinational making billions of dollars in profit every year, collected a lawyer's laptop and phone in order to locate and maybe sell his vacation house in Vermont or whatever for a few hundred thousand dollars? Don't be ridiculous. I am not sure he would care, his life was destroyed enough anyway (like the lives of the thousand of Ecuadorians living with environmental damage).
> Not to worry about Chevron, because they did not give a single cent of the 9.5B$ to the Ecuador government, or indigenous communities who got toxic waste dumped in their drinking water, or Ecuadorians who discovered oil pools on their property. 30'000 people are represented in that case, with 1000 separate complaints.
Then LurkingPenguin corrected your misinformation:
> Chevron was in Ecuador through a subsidiary that had a partnership with Ecuador's state-owned oil company, which owned the majority (62.5%) of the partnership. Chevron's subsidiary completed environmental remediation required by the Ecuadorian government and signed a settlement agreement with the government in 1995 releasing it from all environmental claims.
Then you replied without admitting your false statement, and his comment remains downvoted.
This whole discussion is a prime example of how unfair and biased most people are. It's a wonder any semblance of justice is ever done in this world.
This is what Chevron-owned Texaco has done in the 90's :
> Chevron has argued that Texaco spent $40m ($31m) cleaning up the area during the 1990s, and signed an agreement with Ecuador in 1998 absolving it of any further responsibility.
Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45455984
This is the real corruption here. No way to make a thorough clean-up of 16 billion gallons of toxic waste water with that amount of money, let alone compensate the victims. Do you think this is justice? Do you think this agreement didn't deserve to be overturned? Is that what you're defending? Meanwhile Chevron's lawsuit against Donzinger ended up in a several million dollars fine against a single individual.
Indeed, it's a wonder any semblance of justice is ever done in this world.
This is how things work in banana republics. The state sacrifices the health of its citizens for the gain of the state, which basically operates for the benefit of the political elites.
State-owned oil companies partner with oil majors, usually because they lack the expertise and capital to exploit their own resources.
In this case, the state-owned oil company owned 62.5% of the consortium. When Chevron's subsidiary exited, it made an agreement with Ecuador under which Chevron's subsidiary performed the environmental remediation the state required and was released from future environmental claims.
This is really straightforward legally. There is no legitimate legal basis for this agreement to be overturned, which is why multiple courts have refused to recognize the judgment, and why multiple countries, including Canada, Argentina and Brazil, have refused to allow collection of Chevron assets in their countries upon this judgment.
If international law allowed corrupt courts to overturn valid legal agreements for any reason, or no reason, it would threaten the stability of the global economy and the economies of banana republics like Ecuador would be even more avoided than they already are, which would also hurt the Ecuadorian people.
The Ecuadorian people affected by this situation should first and foremost be angry at their corrupt government.
> Meanwhile Chevron's lawsuit against Donzinger ended up in a several million dollars fine for a single individual.
Because the court found that he used illegal tactics (fraud, bribery, etc.) to obtain a judgment in Ecuador. Injustice, real or perceived, does not make another injustice permissible.
Are you saying there's been lied about the various contacts chevron had with this witness and about him admitting to falsification of his testimony?
> It's just that people's preconceptions about evil oil companies screwing indigenous communities get in the way of thinking about whether it's actually true.
But even if I believe what you said, that preconception would still be true. It would just be a state-owned oil company instead of Chevron. So why are you saying that here?
> A person being prosecuted for criminal contempt is entitled to a jury trial in any case in which federal law so provides and must be released or detained as Rule 46 provides. If the criminal contempt involves disrespect toward or criticism of a judge, that judge is disqualified from presiding at the contempt trial or hearing unless the defendant consents. Upon a finding or verdict of guilty, the court must impose the punishment.
What the heck are they claiming he did that warrants 6 months in jail? This is absurd. Hopefully, they can immediately appeal.
If that's how you feel, then it's likely that a common and successful kind of propaganda has done its job. You don't necessarily have to be persuaded, you just have to doubt the normal conclusion:
Imagine standing before a judge and saying, after he's heard the plaintiff's and defendant's cases, "Your honor, if you doubt the normal conclusion, it's likely that you have been swayed by propaganda."
Propaganda is everywhere, especially on the Internet. But of all the stories about which to imply that anyone who doesn't immediately choose sides against one party must have been propagandized--a legal dispute? Who's the biased one here?
Well, thanks for attempting to cast doubt on that.
I don't care much about any form of payment here (as it seems that large penalties hardly ever get enforced after they made their iterations through the courts) but please, why can't they just cleanup their mess?
Monetary penalties are one of the only ways to communicate with these large multinationals the system calls "people".
> Chevron was in Ecuador through a subsidiary that had a partnership with Ecuador's state-owned oil company, which owned the majority (62.5%) of the partnership. Chevron's subsidiary completed environmental remediation required by the Ecuadorian government and signed a settlement agreement with the government in 1995 releasing it from all environmental claims.
Seems like hardly anyone here cares about finding out what the truth is. They just want to collectively rage at the oil industry.
> Seems like hardly anyone here cares about finding out what the truth is. They just want to collectively rage at the oil industry.
I simply cited the original article, no need to jump to any other conclusions.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawy...
Why is flagging a thing anyway?