Hacker News Reader

Comment by k4c9x | Hacker News Reader

He wasn't prosecuted by the Southern District of New York because the case was flimsy AF. So the Chevron paid-for judge "took the rare step of appointing a private law firm, Seward & Kissel, to prosecute Mr. Donziger in the name of the U.S. government". This shit is corrupt as it gets.

View on HN

What about the international courts who came to the same conclusion? Are they all bought by chevron too? I am so fucking sick of people excusing bad behavior because they have drunk so much kool-aid they can't accept that the world is not black and white.

Talking about international bodies, we should also consider the opinion of the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Dention, which is that "Noting all the above, the Working Group concludes that the detention of Mr. Donziger lacks legal basis and is therefore arbitrary, falling within category I of the arbitrary detention categories referred to by the Working Group when considering cases submitted to it. ". See here [1] for the detailed opinion.

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...

Curious he didn't reply to you isn't it dvdkhlng.

Sorry for the delay. I wanted to actually study the case more thoroughly. Here is the actual evidence and option from the 2014 RICO case against Donziger.

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.

Well, he apparently defied a court order for his devices. Even if you think the court is wrong, you're bound, especially as an officer of the court to actually follow their orders.

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.

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"

This was not a “flimsy” case.

Interestingly, the United Nations Human Rights Office's has quite the opposite opinion regarding the Evron vs. Donziger case (the one in the US that lead to Donziger's house arrest) [1].

"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...

And what does that have to do with the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague? And why does a UN working group's opinion on anything matter? Are they a more fair and unbiased judge than the PCA, and was the case presented to them by both sides for judgment?

You are right, it does not say anything about the Permanent Court of Arbitration's decision on the matter. I was more trying to make the point, that various court decisions related to this matter (the original decision against chevron as well as the case against Donziger) seem to be cast into doubt by external "impartial looking" entities, turning the water very, very muddy here.

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).

Correction: Donziger giving the Ecuadorean judge a $500,000 bribe is as corrupt as it gets.

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!

Ah, yes, a functional court system is one that can be “pissed off” rather than, you know, carry out its mandate to be impartial.

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.

> "an US judge who accept bribes (sorry, lobbyist money) from… Chevron."

What is this part referring to?

Loretta Preska is a high ranking member of the Federalist Society, which is heavily contributed to by Chevron

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...

Why should the court not be “pissed off” if you deliberately try to interfere with the process?

I guess by your logic the judge also shouldn’t be pissed off if you start blasting music in the courtroom?

The wikipedia page on Donziger [1] says that the main witness to those bribe accusations retracted his statement and gives [2] as a source for that retraction. It seems, that the US courts did not consider that retraction, though [1].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Kaplan's_2014_...

[2] https://www.vice.com/en/article/neye7z/chevrons-star-witness...

And if you read the second source you provide, it states the following:

* "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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com