I've been targeted with a vicious corporate counterattack (2021)
esquire.com
esquire.com
Look at Gawker and Peter Thiel--no matter how you feel personally about what they did, what they published about him was absolutely legal. As a background task his lawyers destroyed that company by keeping them tied up in court cases and funding any one with an axe to grind against them until they were gone.
I can't say I read Gawker or was a fan of what they did, or saying it was morally upstanding. But they were the wrong target. It was bizarre to me that Thiel would go after them, except if you look at it as Thiel not really caring about the actual spread of information, and instead look at it as Thiel scaring away any sort of journalist or journalistic organization from scrutinizing him at all on any controversial topics. It just seemed like a classic case of defending the freedom of speech of the morally questionable to protect freedom of speech in general.
I don't remember the Hogan case in detail as it's been awhile, but to me Gawker was not the really offending person. It was whoever recorded that. Why Thiel went after Gawker rather than the person who clearly violated expectations of privacy in a way that might land them in jail in many districts is beyond me.
gawker repeatedly offered to settle with hogan, but for some strange reason* hogan refused to and kept appealing and moving venues. during these appeals and negotiations a judge required gawker take the video down which they did. the judge then also required gawker take the post (ascii text) down as well, which they refused to do.
* it turned out hogan was just a front for thiel and taking down the video was not really the goal, bankrupting the parent company of valleywag was.
"A lawful order from a circuit court judge is a serious thing. While we vehemently disagree with Campbell's order with respect to the video itself, we have chosen to take it down pending our appeal.
But the portion of the order compelling us to remove the entirety of Daulerio's post—his words, his speech—is grossly unconstitutional. We won't take it down"
the gay editor of gawker published the gay writer from valleywag's essay about how peter thiel was ALREADY 'out' and that everyone in silicon valley acting like it was a shameful secret that could not be mentioned was in-effect trying to put a gay man who was not in the closet back in it because of their discomfort with the topic.
like everything else on the internet once the facts got rung through the social media process the conventional wisdom became the perfect inverse of the actual truth.
its worth noting that thiel himself has never claimed that his 'outing' (which did not happen) was his motivation. he has however on many occasions explained his reasoning and justification as essentially viewing journalists/journalism/critical-reporting as haters that hold us all back and should be forcibly shut up. note that i'm using the word 'haters' but he actually used the word 'terrorists'.
1) Gawker got what they deserved 2) The legal power of the very rich makes me uneasy, and I don't support such unilateral over-use of the legal system by the very rich.
In other words; Gawker got what they deserved, but I don't agree with the methodology behind the counter-attack -- I see it as abusive and indicative of a system that is tilted for one side to win more easily.
The power scale is kinda Hulk Hogan < Gawker < Peter Thiel < pether Thiel + Hulk Hogan.
But in the end power (and money) are always amoral. Its their use which defines it. The only shocking thing is that justice is not free (even in countries in europe where education and healthcare are...).
Thiel didn't take down Gawker by being richer and more powerful. He took them down in a fair trial because he was right and they were wrong. You would never get that fair trial because it would be millions in legal fees before you got there.
The lesson should have been that Thiel and other billionaires have such enormous influence over governments and courts that he's a direct threat to democratic systems. Just look at how things turned out, Hogan couldn't touch Gawker because of Freedom of the Press, but then Thiel got involved and suddenly the 1st Amendment stopped protecting Gawker. The moment a billionaire got involved the legal system changed.
And if you need any more proof that people like Thiel are a threat to democracy, he's currently funding conservative candidates in the US who believe the presidential election was "stolen" from Trump.
And yes, billionaires who donate to "the left" are a problem as well. Any time enormous amounts of wealth and power are concentrated in the hands of a few people, it can't help but go against democratic ideals. You used the term "progressive" but both of the main US political parties have been bought out by wealthy interests, and I'd hardly call either "progressive".
Maybe I'm different from most people, but the lessons I learned were 1) there's a rich a-hole named Peter Thiel and 2) he's a petty spiteful vindictive a-hole (in my opinion based on what I know of his actions). In practical terms it mostly meant that when I saw news mention of him I knew who was being referred to.
If you do something perfectly legal that someone does not like, and that person has sufficient money and/or power, they can simply go hunting for something illegal you've done (there's always something) and aggressively bankroll actions against you.
Thiel used Hogan and his case as a proxy to settle a personal beef.
This is not dissimilar from the cops tailing activists around in their daily lives, hoping they can find something, anything, to charge them with.
And then what Thiel did to Gawker, while not nice, was legal.
If you're going to build a company on the idea of skirting legality in order to ruin people's lives, don't be upset when someone does the same thing to your company.
It took me a second to realize you were not talking about palantir.
Or ebay.
Thiel getting angry about a story around his sexuality (it wasn't "outing" him, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32265067) is pretty fucking hilarious coming from the guy who founded what amounts to a corporate-run NSA.
Given the general attitude in that country towards homosexuality and that it is straight up a crime in SA, not only Gawker was essentially sabotaging his business deal, they were opening him up to physical danger and criminal prosecution.
There is this great scene in the movie "From The Hip" where the CEO of a bank assaulted another individual. The scene is his lawyer saying he thinks they can win the case. The CEO responds essentially with "You can't win. I hit him. Just make the case last 3 days so he has to spend more money." That pretty much sums up being rich and the power those people wield.
My ex wife is a lawyer. I agree with this statement...
Isn't his time essentially money?
I'm glad I don't work in legal, it sounds so drawn out and boring.
The only part of the book that seems out of place is near the end, where you see Holiday's speculation on Thiel's (who Holiday clearly admires) association with Trump (who Holiday clearly despises.) He simply can't understand why Thiel would associate with Trump at all.
https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Peter-Gawker-Anatomy-Intri...
It starts with rejection of the mainstream media, academics, and other "experts".
In the case of Peter Thiel, he is extremely hated among emerging factions of the radical left and dissident right.
I'm heartbroken it was Steven Danziger, they guy that took on big oil, gave them a black eye, and went to (house) jail for it.
Even though his case is one I've followed for years, it even escaped my own memory.
Also, someone mentioned Snowden and Arrange. for comparison. Although they can be thought as same, remember these two, unlike Danziger, took on the govt, the intelligence apparatus, and its guns. They should have known full well that when you play high stakes poker you are risking a ton.
Danziger OTOH, was taking on a private corporation. His case is big, but no too different in scope than say Erin Brokovich's case against PG&E & Hinkley(2), or Jan Schlittchmanns case vs WR Grace and Beatrice Foods(1). The plaintiff counsels won in both cases, without consequences to their life or careers.
Arrange and Snowden were morally righteous however they probably knew the size of the sacrifice they were about to make and made the decision to proceed anyway. I doubt Danziger had any idea that what he was getting into would cost him his career.
(1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Cryovac,_Inc.
(2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamin...
The US state apparatus clearly considers that US corporate economic interests far outweigh any rights non-US citizens have, especially outside the USA, and doubly especially in South America, and are thus more than willing to provide any kind of assistance that helps those economic interests - up to and including military aid in the past (for example, the infamous banana republics).
Taking on a US corporation harming people outside the USA (especially if you have the gall of winning!) is seen as a slight on the USA itself, and is punished as much as possible. It's important to the US state department that people are taught not to take such a task on lightly. I'm surprised there weren't bigger repercussions for the foreign judges who tried the case as well.
Are these exceptions? I wonder how many individuals (without money) have taken on mega corporations only to have their lives destroyed by the mega corps (legally)?
I am just speculating here, but my guess is that everyone knows about cases like Brokovich vs PG&E because the little guy won and because of the size of the settlement (and the movie helps too). For every case that small guys win, there must be many many more cases that they lose, even though they are on the right?
Take a look at the Environmental Justice Atlas [1], which tracks 3711 cases and counting.
[1]: https://ejatlas.org/
The Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague found that the evidence placed before the Court was "the most thorough documentary, video, and testimonial proof of fraud ever put before an arbitral tribunal", and that [Donziger] did engage in blackmail and bribery of Ecuadorian judges.
The situation is complex, and I certainly don't have any insight into the true rights and wrongs of the case. And there's certainly evidence that points towards Donziger's innocence too. But Esquire's take is, I think, entirely unbalanced, and discounts out of hand the idea that any of the many, many court cases Donziger has lost (in multiple legal systems and in front of multiple judges) may have been at all correct.
Just because someone's moral character isn't perfect doesn't mean their legal rights disappear. John Adams would be horrified.
If you think the initial conviction was wrong, then everything that follows is unjust, but regardless of whether it was just, it's entirely logical.
What's the alternative? "Judge: You've been convicted of stealing millions of dollars, return them." "Criminal: No, I don't feel like it." If there's no penalty for refusing to comply, then there's really no point in fining people or ordering asset forfeiture.
Again, if you think Donziger did nothing wrong, then it's unjust that the process has been applied to him, but I don't see any real issue with the process. What he was convicted of didn't come with a lot of jail time, but it did require him to return the money.
I don't think thats a correct reading of the judgement at all. The "most thorough documentary" is the court referring to itself in the amount of data (i.e. documents) that it accumulates to show that it's improbable for the Ecuadorian judge to have written the initial decision (against chevron).
> many court cases Donziger has lost
Tthose court cases generally explicitly say they're not deciding if Chrevron broke any laws. They're generally pretty explicit in that they don't think Donziger won "correctly". i.e. with the PCA the PCA isn't saying that Chrevron didn't litter, they're saying we think the decision by initial judge was done improperly (i.e. it was ghost written).
[1]: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2453 > (4) The ‘Ghostwriting’ of the Lago Agrio Judgment: The facts established on the factual, expert and forensic evidence speak for themselves, as set out at length in Parts IV, V and VI above. 8.54 As there explained, the details as to how exactly all or material parts of the Lago Agrio Judgment came to be written, corruptly by certain of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’ representatives for Judge Zambrano, remain incomplete. The missing factual and forensic evidence is likely available only in Ecuador, if it still exists at all. Yet the circumstantial and other evidence adduced in this arbitration is overwhelming. Short of a signed confession by the miscreants, as rightly submitted by the Claimants at the end of the Track II Hearing, the evidence establishing ‘ghostwriting’ in this arbitration “must be the most thorough documentary, video, and testimonial proof of fraud ever put before an arbitral tribunal.”31
It's quite clear that the residents of Lago Agrio suffered and are continuing to suffer; significant environmental damage was done and was not remediated. It's less clear who should be responsible for that; the damage was caused by a joint venture between a company that no longer exists (but which is now part of Chevron) and the Ecuadorian government (although the current Ecuadorian government doesn't recognise some actions that previous governments took as legitimate). It's certainly arguable that at least some responsibility may have come to rest with Chevron, yes.
...none of which has any bearing on the question of whether Donziger bribed a judge or whatever.
> showed an environmental scientist present at a legal strategy meeting of plaintiffs' lawyers; the same scientist was later appointed by the Ecuadorian court as an ostensibly impartial expert to write a report on technical issue
So the evidence shows that one scientific expert wasn't fully independent.
Contrast this with the clear evidence of conflicts of interests from the US judges, the bribing of the oil company's star witness and their eventual recantation of some of their testimony.
It sure looks like there's far more evidence of fraud from Chevron than whatever the documentary crew caught.
He since recanted his false testimony.
Even if there is actually some kind of wrongdoing on Donziger's side, the blatant multi-million dollar effort to discredit him and blatantly ignore the law on Chevron's part so taints any such evidence that it should be considered worthless.
The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer.
The article was simply incorrect to do so. Again, there was an actual film crew following Donziger around; a key scene was cut from the theatrical release because someone on Donziger's team said that what it showed was "so serious we could lose everything".
> He since recanted his false testimony.
He has recanted some testimony. Not all.
And to be clear, the options here seem to be 1) bribed by Chevron to falsely claim he was bribed by Donziger or 2) bribed by both Donziger and later Chevron.
He clearly has lied in exchange for money; now we're just trying to decide which one of his paid-for stories is true, but there's no particular reason to think any of them are true.
> The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer.
The problem with cases like this is that there are a lot of different sides, and it's not clear any of them are "good guys", with the exception of the actual residents of Lago Agrio, who unfortunately seem likely to lose come what may.
In any case, if two wrongdoers end up in a dispute, if you pick a side, you'll end up siding with a wrongdoer, yes. Which I would suggest you are, in fact, doing. Sometimes neither side is worth backing.
- The alleged wrongdoing broke rules in US laws but are permissible (and even common) in the ecuadorean legal framework.
- the alleged wrong doing took place in Ecuador, while the case was being tried in an ecuadorean court.
-
[1] https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/stories/documents/in..., especially part IV where the use of Guerra’s testimony is explained on page 139 of the PDF.
Kaplan should be impeached and removed. Whatever this guy did, he is just one guy. Kaplan is wielding and abusing the power of the US govt. That is always worse than anything an individual can do.
The judge responsible should be disbarred.
Anyway, to more directly address your point: The person you’re responding to might likely respond in the affirmative to your question, though I’ve never seen anyone actually explain how house arrest in the US makes any sense in this case.
if (true) { yes } else { no }
what's difficult here? There was no
#include <assert.h>
Donziger didn't get convicted of bribery so at the moment its just an accusation.
Furthermore, this is a geopolitical risk. If the west doesnt uphold the principles we purport to represent then our support dwindles and allies who were on the fence will fall against us.
If you wanna play that dumb "zoom out until everything looks the same" game then all societies are like Russia. Would there even have been a media article written about this guy had this story been in Russia?
The caveman were almost certainly treating the guy who rocked the boat worse than the guy who didn't. Every society plays favorites to some extent. There's a lot of noise in the data when it comes to how much due process these kinds of "inconvenient to the rulers" people get in modern democracies so any nation can be made to look like Russia depending on who you pick and choose. The lawyer in question looks like he really got unjustifiably screwed but equally "inconvenient to the people on top" people have been left relatively alone in the past.
I think the West used to be better at putting these principles into action although it's true if never has been very consistent.
Who's we? Last I checked it was more or less a coin toss between "murka bad" and "murka bestest" depending on which filter bubble you happened to be in at the minute. Every society tells people that it is the best. I think pride based solely on group membership is a very bad thing at any scale beyond small groups but every organization from the smallest up to nations tries to foster that sentiment to varying extents so...
>I think the West used to be better at putting these principles into action although it's true if never has been very consistent.
I'm inclined to believe this but I'm also inclined to believe a lot more bad stuff was easier to sweep under the rug in the past so the error bars on any "it used to be better" observation are massive. Hearing about these things at all is a prerequisite to changing them.
The rule of law, separation of powers and adherence to procedural rules can be assessed and are regularly assessed by organizations such as freedom house [1]. Sure, these assessments will have some bias, but it is possible to work towards a quasi-objective take.
Now that we know the Aussie government does this kind of thing, how many other cases are there that we don't know about? US black sites around the world? Everyone knows about Guantánamo, but how many others are there that don't make the news?
This is the first time i've heard this one! I have heard others too like "we live in handcuffs, pretty and fuzzy handcuffs, but handcuffs no less..."
EDIT: I should have added that: i totally agree with you on the sentiment!
I'm not making any excuses for any country. A crime is a crime regardless.
The GP likened the US to Russia and I to an extent, disagree. There are fundamental differences in worldview, value for democracy and freedom, respect for individual rights, rule of law, the right to protest and criticize the government, freedom of the press etc between those two nations and between Western democracies and communist/socialist countries. I come from one of the latter and live in the US now so I have first hand experience to compare.
Same here. I was born in the USSR and came to Canada some 30 years ago. I very much prefer it here ;) My point was not about treatment of their own citizens by any particular country. It was how one country treats the others. From that point of view the victims might see the US in much worse light then say Russia. And the same victims might still want to immigrate to the US because they'll be better off in regards for life standard.
When I compare that to the the US's invasion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan for example, I see fundamental differences.
Regardless of whether one believes they were justifiable, the nature of the invasions and occupation are quite different compared to Russia's current invasion of Ukraine.
Some of these include
- the intentional and systematic targeting of civilian cities and other public places
- war crimes including rape, murder, running over civilians with tanks.
- the invading military's efforts (or lack thereof) to better the occupied countries' people and government through setting up medical, education, construction and other programs to benefit the society.
Again, I'm not arguing for the justification of the invasions. I'm saying the difference in the invasions and subsequent occupations point to fundamental differences between western democracies and communist/socialist countries.
> they'll be better off in regards for life standard.
Life standard usually means economic standard. I agree many people want to come to the US for that. I'd also say that is not the only reason. Some of things I listed above (e.g. freedom of speech, free society) are strong motivators.
P.S. And I'm not trying to make this personal by picking on the country you're from. I'm from a country that has committed great atrocities and crimes against humanity as well. Again, GP likened the US to Russia and that is what I'm responding to.
Talking about scale - number of dead in Iraq for example would dwarf that of Ukraine. I am not sure about "quality" but I find it repulsive to even talk this way about mass murder.
>" Some of things I listed above (e.g. freedom of speech, free society) are strong motivators."
I agree with that.
>"And I'm not trying to make this personal by picking on the country you're from."
I have no sympathy to that rabid dog Putin and to what he and his lapdogs are doing. Fuck him. Besides it's been more than 30 years. I pretty much feel Canadian ;)
Edit: I was referring to the scale of war crimes committed. See this quote:
> I'm sure the US has committed 1 and 2, but I would assert that the scale and quality
1 and 2 as listed in my comment are categories of war crimes. Russia in five months has committed war crimes at a scale that eclipses the US history of modern warfare. This does not include Russia's past history of documented war crimes.
I meant quality not in the sense of high or low quality of war crimes, but the nature and severity of them. I think a better word in fact is severity. E.g. instances of severe atrocities including rape, murder, torture, targeting of civilians, etc.[1]
Anyways, maybe I'm biased or brainwashed or whatever, but I see a qualitative difference between how the US conducts international affairs and the way Russia, China, North Korea, the Taliban, etc. do.
I don't have the data to back it up, just my personal observations and experience. I trust the US and other western democracies way more than the other countries I listed. The former is nowhere near perfect, but also no where near as bad as these other governments/regimes.
[1] This is severe. https://news.yahoo.com/footage-appears-show-russian-soldier-...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10710451/Rape-Russi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian...
Hello from Europe. We exist!
Europe is great and I'd gladly choose most any Western European country over countries like Russia as well.
I believe a lot of people, including people in those Russia like countries would too. And my assertion is that points to fundamental differences between e.g. U.S. and Russia and friends [1] that causes people to much prefer the former over the latter.
[1]. e.g. forcing Shanghai residents into Covid lockdown by welding their doors shut and leaving them to half starve. Can you imagine this happening in the US or Western Europe?
Stalinism was economic totalitarianism with a goal and an exit strategy. Authoritarianism was supposed to be a phase; the system would moderate itself over time. The degree to which that would have actually happened, we don't know. External forces destroyed the Soviet Union, so all we can do is speculate, but I suspect that if it had been left alone, it'd have fixed a lot of its problems and be a decent place to live by now.
The corporate system we have now is also economic totalitarianism. Financial interests decide where you can live, what jobs you can do, and what kind of reputation you have in the community. The issue here is that it's economic totalitarianism with no exit strategy. Neoliberalism insists that things have never been better (despite substantial evidence to the contrary) and there's no reason to exit from economic totalitarianism when we should, instead, "own nothing, have no privacy, and be happy".
> External forces destroyed the Soviet Union
The Soviet Union was stagnating from within. Moscow was losing control and the Baltic Republics, frustrated with the slow pace of reform, one by one seceded. I'm not sure how you're blaming that on external forces.
> if it had been left alone, it'd have fixed a lot of its problems and be a decent place to live by now.
Given the above, I highly doubt that.
I'm a bit incredulous that you're defending Stalinism.
While I am a socialist politically, I very much disagree with this. Stalinism was economic totalitarianism for the sake of Stalin. The claims of a brighter communist future were all obvious propaganda lies. Socialism died in Russia almost as soon as Lenin assumed power and dissolved the factory councils (soviets) - after that, "socialism" and "communism" were only propaganda terms for the next 50 years, just like they claimed they were "democratic" and a "people's republic".
It really is delusional to think that one of the greatest murderers in history, one with a huge personality cult, had been in essence working for the good of his people...
I did not intend to argue that Stalin himself expected to bring about a communist utopia. It's more likely that he was a straight-out liar. Still, I think the USSR's government and society could only function, in the long run, if it offered progress in line with its promises, just as the US can only function by promoting a mythology of individual freedom and exceptional destiny.
The promise made to the people was that economic totalitarianism would end. It never did, but we still don't know if that was because the USSR was irredeemably corrupt, or because the country was attacked by some of the world's most egregious assholes (the czarists, then the Nazis, then the capitalists).
> Neoliberalism insists that things have never been better
House arrest was a miscarriage of justice and bad, but it was during Covid when everyone was basically house arrested.
At the end of the day (or house arrest) this is all still legal maneuvering. It may be vicious within that context but there are much bigger and sometimes nastier contexts out there.
What it seems to me is that the legal system has a blind spot: they are very much obsessed with jurisdiction and ethics rules, but don't know what to do when those are in conflict. What happens when you insist that the only venue for a case is one that demands bribes and does not try cases impartially? Chevron seems to think that Ecuadorian corruption meant they were above the law - it's the same logic as the Idaho Zone of Death[1]. Donziger figured that if he's being told to try the case there by an American judge, than it's OK to pay the bribes necessary to get the ruling he wants.
The only reason why that even seems remotely OK is purely a function of how dirty and awful oil companies are. Had this happened to almost anyone else the countersuit on Donziger would have been considered to be a moral imperative. If a lawyer bribed a judge in another country to get a quick judgment on, say, a bakery or something, we'd be up in arms and wanting to see that lawyer behind bars. So perhaps this is a new benchmark for unsympathetic plaintiffs somehow. You are such a bad person that we don't care if you got extorted by a dirty judge-bribing lawyer.
That's, of course, assuming the judge-bribing happened. The person who delivered the testimony has been rather unreliable about this; and has recanted and un-recanted his testimony multiple times. I don't necessarily treat this as evidence that nothing happened and that he made it up. It's entirely possible that this guy just plays up all sides for himself. He could have taken a bribe from Donziger, then "protection from Ecuador" from Chevron, and then more money or favors from the other international tribunals he testified at later. That doesn't exonerate Donziger, it just implicates Chevron, too.
The ultimate take-away here is that the legal system has tunnel vision and is easy to distract. Allegations of unethical conduct by lawyers is enough of an internal threat to the functioning of the courts that they will forget the original crime in favor of circling the wagons. Scumbag lawyers like Chevron's legal team know that they can gin up an ethics trial to get out of their own misconduct.
[0] Or at least, as favorable as you can get for a company that dumped oil on indigenous peoples
[1] A small strip of Yosemite National Park in Idaho where it is constitutionally impossible to empanel a jury for criminal proceedings because Congress demanded it be treated as part of a Wyoming judicial district
No one said anything like this. We feel that the behavior of the judge and of Chevron are completely inexcusable, and it's a condemnation of the system in general that this sort of behavior is even allowed.
> Donziger figured that if he's being told to try the case there by an American judge, than it's OK to pay the bribes necessary to get the ruling he wants.
You introduce this as if it's absolute truth.
As you know, because you mention it later, there is absolutely no evidence that Donziger bribed anyone, as - if you had read the story - the single witness had received huge compensation from Chevron for his story, relocation to America, and still recanted his testimony. You later mention that maybe it isn't true, ending up "That doesn't exonerate Donziger," bookending your comment with a Donziger's guilt on both ends.
There's no reading of this that's OK in the slightest with respect to Chevron and the judge, period, the end.
All your talking seems to be an attempt to distract from this nasty truth, to carry water for one of the more evil companies of today, and that's saying an awful lot.
The top comments on this article are following that exact logic. Stuff like:
>Its important to be reminded regularly that there are perfectly legal ways for people with lots of money to endlessly bully people that annoy them.
>My mom was an attorney. A really sound piece of advice she gave me was, "Never get into a legal battle with a lawyer. You can't win."
The average non-attorney is not capable of getting into the kind of mistakes that Chevron was able to pin on Donziger. Even a SLAPP suit for defamation wouldn't get you put into house arrest for two years before you even get tried. At worst the system brands you a vexatious litigant.
> All your talking seems to be an attempt to distract from this nasty truth, to carry water for one of the more evil companies of today, and that's saying an awful lot.
No, I'm trying to explain how Chevron got away with murder, not say that they should be able to do so.
The only reason why it even matters whether or not Donziger bribed anyone in Ecuador is because the US courts refused to try the original case. The US has much stronger rule-of-law than Ecuador does. This, ironically, let Chevron play off accusations of corruption against judges that will absolutely fuck over the corruptible. This is what I mean by "tunnel vision": they were so worried about the possibility of a bribe happening that they threw out the judgment entirely and fucked over the attorney involved instead, which is what Chevron wanted. It is corruption in the name of anticorruption.
Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like, working for those with the biggest wallets is not ideal either.
At the same time, I wonder how you would avoid two of those individuals banding together to harass another individual.
That's in the basic case that almost everyone will experience at multiple points in their lives. Instead, the state intervenes and does just enough violence to keep the peace on both sides.
The other reason state violence keeps civilization together is credit. To extend credit, you have to have state violence or a mafia. There has to be something to do if someone just decides not to pay you back. You can build up trust with a particular borrower by starting with small amounts (or collectively do this by sharing information with other lenders, but that's a bit of a mafia), but that doesn't prevent people from living up to that trust for the little loans, until the big loan comes, then absconding. Or simply doing it with introductory loans across many different (non-colluding) lenders.
In all these situations, fortune favors larger families. Your family determines whether people will be afraid of hurting you, whether you'll get justice if they do, whether there are people who have resources that trust you enough to lend them to you... if you don't have a family, you're fucked.
My problem is state violence on behalf of the powerful towards the weak, which comes with state control by the wealthy. Otherwise, thank Christ for state violence. I know I would have killed at least two people (unless one of them killed me) if it didn't exist.
The alternative is anarchy, and from anarchy a winner through any violence necessary will emerge and become the monopoly on violence becoming the state. You cannot have rule of law without coercion, and you cannot have coercion without some threat of violence.
Throughout history some form of government exists with humans back to villages with chiefs or elders or council to arbitrate disputes and enforce law, violence is the basis for all human power structure, either you follow the law or you will cast out by force to then create your own power structure somewhere else or made to comply by force if you stay.
Money allows people to freely trade, but in must be recognized by the state or theft of it will not be enforced and it becomes meaningless.
It would be nice to think humans could just work together and agree on some basic economic rules and "let the market decide" but who would enforce the rules? That would just degrade into some aggressive monopolistic organization of people becoming the state again, power vacuums don't last and never have.
How do you enforce a code of conduct without threat of violence? What is the difference between a ruler and a leader who gives the orders to forcefully enact a law?
You may stick to a code of conduct because you believe it to be right, others may not, what stops others from doing whatever they like to you? You can defend yourself (through violence) but you cannot do that against a larger better equipped group, instead you must be in your own group that is organized by a set rules that you must follow, and if you don't then there must be consequences.
There is no such thing as a stable anarchy, it's simply law of the jungle.
For example, a just hierarchy is that between (non-abusive) parents and their small children. When a parent forbids their small child from eating another piece of candy, they are not an oppressive hierarchy imposing its will on the weak, even though to the child it may seem that way at the time, they are actually using the authority of their fully understanding of the world to help the child.
Another example may be between teachers and pupils. When the teacher is speaking to the class, they have certain powers over the class (for example, to forbid them from speaking among themselves) that are just, as they come from the needs of the position, not from rigid power tripping.
The point of anarchy is to look at all hierarchies through this lens, and renounce those that can't justify themselves in similar ways. It turns out, most hierarchies fall in the latter category - the world would be better without them - at least in anarchist thought. But some few do remain useful, and those are the ones that anarchists would keep.
Note: I'm using "anarchist" in the philosophical and political sense, not in the more day to day sense that it has usually gotten. In fact, many "anarchists" in the common-sense terms are quite rigidly totalitarian in practice.
Now, Hobbes and Rousseau are flawed thinkers, but the gist of "social contract" theory still constitutes the foundation of the modern nations state, whether republic, parliamentary or monarchy.
The failure, as an earlier commenter pointed out to be a "geopolitical risk" is when we don't uphold our own principles. the Rule of Law that we in the "west" are so (rightfully) proud of must therefore be as brutal against the rich and powerful as against the poor.
Without that example to assuage the middle classes everything gravitates to two poles, those with everything to lose and those with nothing to lose. Hobbes rightly feared those with nothing to lose much more (being an aristocrat's teacher at a time of civil war) and seeing all the fancy lawyers and money in the world won't do you any good against a hungry peasant with a rifle and nothing left to protect, so the state must treat the rich and poor as equals.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(book)
[2] https://oyc.yale.edu/political-science/plsc-114/lecture-1
Is there anything the general public can do to help? Like, write to a congressman or something?
It's as true today as it ever was.
No cobbler is capable of extinguishing humanity. Exxon is. What makes it worse is that they know they have this power, have known for decades, and do not care.
I cannot imagine — literally — a greater evil.
"Hell is other people."
Good luck out there when you run up against real power structures. You do not have the rights you think you do.
The Government can and will kill you without even charging you or proving anything to a jury.
This isnt even political as both left and right wing controlled states, CO and TN have gone along with it.
We simply do not have any rights in the U.S. Truth seems to be based simply on how many political connections and how much money you have.
For example, "Hey @FBI, why am I not being arrested so I can defend myself in court?"
Then in a way, the continued silence proves my side of things.
Anyway. Sorry to sort of hijack this post with this story. Wasnt my intention.
We all just need to focus on our core rights as U.S. Citizens because they are quickly going away.
I won't discuss the mental health component further because I don't see why you would trust an anonymous HN comment on this topic if you are skeptical of the motivations your friends and family.
Due process and right to a trial don't apply to your situation, since those are rights for people who have been charged with a crime. There is no constitutional right to be charged with a crime on request.
I understand your desire to prove your innocence in court, but even if you were able to do that, it is highly unlikely (read: near zero chance) that it would reverse the damage to your career and personal life. Based on the lack of potential benefit, time spent on trying to be charged with a crime is likely to be time wasted. I suggest that you move on and try to rebuild your life in other ways.
Finally, the investigation is on going right now. As it has been for years. There is no crime to charge me with so there is no end to it.
It is a very unique situation and I am not guilty.
My right to a trial and due process does apply here. The Govt cannot injure you in the way it has done to me now for years without due process. Simple as that.
Courts prove guilt or innocence, not accusations and not law enforcement agents.
It is also not a mental health issue, thank you.
EDIT: Also I have tried to move on for years. I am not allowed to and they even refuse to give me ID or allow me to earn any income. I would love to move on. Endless investigation will not allow it.
Also to be clear, it has been heavily implied death is the result, I have survived multiple murder attempts already. I do not think this is how it is supposed to work. It was only a few seconds of accidential nudity, at home, after waking up from a nap.
This is being used to kill me without even charging me.
What this schmoe did or didn't do is not on the table: he has not been convicted of anything, and is being denied a jury trial. So, anything you find said about him is hearsay.
But what this judge and his cronies are doing is abusing the power of the US government. That is far worse than anything even they accuse him of.