10 ms·

The lawyer who took on Chevron – and now marks his 600th day under house arrest

321 points by ljf 6y ago

imchillyb 6y ago
Those viewing this headline will believe these two concepts (lawyer suing Chevron, and his house arrest) are related, when they are not. Taken directly from OPs posted article link: A US federal judge then concurred with the fraud allegations ... finding that Donziger conducted a “pattern of racketeering activity” 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 ... the judge, Lewis Kaplan, hit him with criminal contempt charges, upheld on appeal, that led to his house arrest. ------ At no time was this arrest related to the attorney's suit of Chevron. His arrest is due to US Federal anti-racketeering charges brought against him. Those charges were then upheld by a US Federal Judge. ------ This article is a soft-pad for a criminal. Stop it.
- Matheus28 6y ago
  Did you do more than skim the article? The two are connected.
- jcomis 6y ago
  >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. What about this part?
- IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
  deleting, post lacks prior context
  - makomk 6y ago
    As I understand it, the big problem was that the "oil spilled by a chevron sub" wasn't, at least not according to the evidence that had been discovered through the usual legal process... it was probably spilled by a company owned by the Ecuadorian state long after Chevron and their subsidiaries ceased to have any involvement. Then some really shady business happened where, as far as anyone can tell, the Ecuadorian judge threw out the existing independent expert reports and replaced them with an "independent" report that was secretly ghost-written by him and his team for no justifiable reason in order to find Chevron liable anyway. He also left a considerable paper trail when doing this which the US courts got their hands on, hence all the hand-wringing in the article about "sensitive client information". (The confession from the judge probably didn't help, even if some of it was later retracted, but even without that he'd be in huge legal hot water.) Somehow, I suspect this quote from the article is at least as much about that development as it is about the lawyer in question somehow being persecuted by Big Oil: "It is this strange multi-front battle with one extraordinary explosive development after another. It has had this magical quality to enrage everyone involved in it."
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      > it was probably spilled by a company owned by the Ecuadorian state long after Chevron and their subsidiaries ceased to have any involvement Source?
      - makomk 6y ago
        At least some of this is mentioned in the US court judgement linked to in the article: https://casetext.com/case/chevron-corp-v-donziger-28 https://casetext.com/case/chevron-corp-v-donziger-28 (under the heading "Donziger Causes a Change to Less Probative Tests When the LAPs' Experts Find Pollution that Likely Was Not Caused by Texaco" and in subsequent and preceding sections). I think there may have been news coverage that went into further details, can't remember where though.
        h0l0cube 6y ago
        Thank you for that. I view the case a little more skeptically now. The stakes were high on both sides, and ergo the motivation to distort the process just as high. However, the motivation for Chevron to mitigate environmental impacts in the 70s/80s/90s were negligible, until lawsuits and stories like this provided the PR incentive. So I'm inclined to believe they are responsible for much - but perhaps not all - of the destruction. I think it's a little naive to think otherwise.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    > US law and procedure is lights years ahead of other countries. > legal systems abroad are not build to defend the powerless, only the powerful. > US law procedure is very good at defending the powerless. That's almost always never the case elsewhere. None of this seems anything like true.
    - danlugo92 6y ago
      USA = good 3rd world = bad
      - yesenadam 6y ago
        There's that, and there's also the apparent belief that every other country besides the USA is a 3rd world country. And where the assumption that the US legal system is infinitely better than every other country's, comes from, I'm not sure.
        perl4ever 6y ago
        I think it comes from the pattern of people seeking it out. A relevant example is Argentina's issuance of bonds in the past and subsequent travails. They didn't have to make themselves subject to US courts in the way they did. For some reason, despite all the disadvantages (potential and actual in hindsight) of borrowing in US dollars and being subject to New York law, they did it anyway.
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    US law procedure is very good at defending the powerless. That's almost always never the case elsewhere. It was Chevron who wanted the case heard in Ecuador. It was originally filed in NY (Chevron's HQ at the time). US courts agreed Ecuador had jurisdiction and exacted a promise from Chevron to abide by the Ecuadorian court's ruling, which Chevron promptly ignored.
    - digitaltrees 6y ago
      Seems odd that the LAP lawyer would file a case in the US if his plan was to bribe Ecuadorian judges.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  > This article is a soft-pad for a criminal. Stop it. This seems disingenuous. Casting a human right and environmental activist who's devoted himself to the well-being of Amazon tribes as a brazen criminal? On allegations, not a conviction, no less.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  You're factually wrong. Donzinger's house arrest stems from a contempt charge brought in the aftermath of the RICO suit brought against him by Chevron. He was placed under house arrest while his appeal of the contempt charge processes. Chevron would have had no reason to bring a RICO action against Donzinger if it were not for Donzinger's suits against Chevron in Ecuador.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tocoder 6y ago
The responsibility on one individual to change the world can be onerous. There needs to be viable alternatives, enforced by institutions, for correcting systemic issues.
diebeforei485 6y ago
Something sketchy is going on with these US judges handling the case. It's hard to conclude otherwise.
- TeeMassive 6y ago
  > His contempt charge will be heard by Judge Loretta Preska, who was on the advisory board of the New York chapter of the Federalist Society, who took the unusual step of appointing a law firm that has previously done work for Chevron, Seward & Kissel, to prosecute Donziger after the department of justice declined to take the case. I'm hearing more and more very bad stuff from both sides of the aisle about the Federalist Society, in particular their judges. Especially when it comes to protecting big institutionally connected organizations.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    The Federalist Society is more nakedly pro corporate than trying to protect "institutionally connected organizations." They don't try to hide this bias either.
    - TeeMassive 6y ago
      I had pro-corporations in mind, but corporations as the giants they are exist mainly due to the influence they have on politicians and institutions.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/ Frontline on the disastrous effects of the Federalist society and Mitch McConnell.
baybal2 6y ago
The matter is whether Chevron did spill oil, or did not spill oil. A case of evidentiary fraud to dismiss that in it entirety? How that works? Man A killed man B, caught on camera, red handed, with wittnesses. Man B's family pays off a wittness to testify, but get caught. Man A claims fraud, racketeering, that the whole case is "tainted," and throw it to the garbage bin. A zealously officious judge then happily complies using every technicality imaginable to cancel an overarching issue.
- makomk 6y ago
  How that worked is that the US courts concluded that Donziger's own chosen experts found smoking-gun evidence showing the oil was spilled not by Chevron but by Ecuador's state-owned oil company, and that he then decided to conceal this evidence from the Ecuadorian courts, get those experts to count all that oil as Chevron's doing, strong-armed one expert to send them a bunch of signed blank pieces of paper which were used to fraudulently claim a report was written by that expert, and engaged in a whole bunch of other equally shady business. From what I can tell, most of this seems to have been undisputed and based on his own words.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    > found smoking-gun evidence showing the oil was spilled not by Chevron but by Ecuador's state-owned oil company You provided the source in your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26616258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26616258 I think you can let people decide the narrative for themselves. The stakes were high on both sides, along with the motivation to distort the outcome, but also this was a time long before PR-blowback was even a consideration by big oil. It seems foolish to think that Chevron put the resources into mitigating environmental damage in some poor country for their oil projects in the 70s/80s. They only factor this in now because of the PR and local political implications.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      >It seems foolish to think that Chevron put the resources into mitigating environmental damage in some poor country for their oil projects in the 70s/80s. No one is claiming they did as I'm reading it. They did however pay $40 million to fix some damage in 1995 and were granted indemnity by the Ecuador government in return. Other environmental damage was found but it likely happened after Chevron was no longer involved in the project. Together that means they're off the hook legally.
anonymousiam 6y ago
He probably should have got a lawyer when he was ordered to produce confidential materials. Instead, he tried to handle it himself. The moment he was faced with a contempt charge for not complying was the moment his personal liberty was at stake. That is the moment to get a lawyer and not try to represent yourself. Now he is in a world of hurt.
- devmunchies 6y ago
  its lawyers all the way down.
  - m463 6y ago
    Well when you look at occupations of many politicians, it's lawyers all the way up too.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  I feel courts ought not to have their own power to punish people for contempt — certainly not in the US, anyway, where we go to great lengths to avoid giving power to tyrants. It's an unfortunate oversight in our Constitution. Consider, for instance, the unrelated case of Judge William H Coward, who ordered a man in contempt to write an apology to the court, post it on social media, and delete negative comments — running roughshod over what ought to have been his First Amendment rights: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article249893653.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/a...
  - jldugger 6y ago
    > I feel courts ought not to have the own power to punish people for contempt How do you handle people not complying with a court order like handing over evidence, paying fines, etc.?
    - retrac 6y ago
      The common law offence of contempt in the US, Canada, UK, etc. is an old power, vague in scope, and without much in the way of the normal process. The objection is usually not to the concept of punishing itself, but to the judge being effectively witness, prosecutor, judge and jury combined. So create a statute that outlines such offences. Charge people if they break it. Put it through the normal trial process. At a very minimum, the judge alleging contempt should not be the judge to try the matter. It might be appropriate to leave a curtailed power of contempt, so that judges can act quickly when they hear someone has bought a paper shredder. But I really don't think it's appropriate that a single judge can decide to have someone imprisoned potentially indefinitely without a proper trial governed by the normal procedures.
heretical_spoon 6y ago
This article provides a different perspective. Lots of good information that I couldn't find elsewhere https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2018/09/16/justice-delayed-but-not-denied-corrupt-ecuadorean-process-fails-in-international-arbitration/?sh=7e1fa1301698 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2018/09/16/justic...
- bryan0 6y ago
  It’s always interesting to read 2 news articles which seem to disagree on the key points. but maybe reading between the lines on the guardian article it’s that this lawyer did commit fraud, but the punishment has been disproportionately harsh.
- donmcronald 6y ago
  > Untrue: I hope the Ecuadorean government will one day compensate them for the awful pollution it has caused This is the part that does it for me. If Chevron participated in the destruction of their environment then Chevron should have to compensate them. Even if the law says they were allowed to it should be the type of thing that’s not tolerated. You can’t give someone permission to murder you and I think it should be the same for the environment. A government or land owner shouldn’t be able to give the ok for environmental destruction and everyone who’s involved should be liable.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Pretty much everything humans do to live involve environmental destruction. You’d end up outlawing being human.
    - kennywinker 6y ago
      or, idk, radically change how we interact with the environment? Something that's desperately needed.
      - gameswithgo 6y ago
milkllz 6y ago
Now sure if anyone saw this before, but here is a link interviewing the lawyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5RZLyLCTo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5RZLyLCTo0
spyridonas 6y ago
600 days. If he wanted he could've easily hacked the tracker and remove it. That's a lot of time to tinker with a box
- m463 6y ago
  He's probably furiously sending emails about it... https://xkcd.com/530/ https://xkcd.com/530/
fblp 6y ago
You can donate to the trust for the Legal Defense of Steven Donziger here: https://www.donzigerdefense.com/ https://www.donzigerdefense.com/
dang 6y ago
Previous threads: Chevron Is Trying to Crush a Prominent Climate Lawyer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24124338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24124338 - Aug 2020 (19 comments) Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22263996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22263996 - Feb 2020 (107 comments)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
tareqak 6y ago
A tweet where the lawyer states that other media outlets respond to appeals to report the same news with silence: https://www.twitter.com/SDonziger/status/1376212433258258435 https://www.twitter.com/SDonziger/status/1376212433258258435

321 points by ljf 6y ago

Those viewing this headline will believe these two concepts (lawyer suing Chevron, and his house arrest) are related, when they are not. Taken directly from OPs posted article link: A US federal judge then concurred with the fraud allegations ... finding that Donziger conducted a “pattern of racketeering activity” 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 ... the judge, Lewis Kaplan, hit him with criminal contempt charges, upheld on appeal, that led to his house arrest. ------ At no time was this arrest related to the attorney's suit of Chevron. His arrest is due to US Federal anti-racketeering charges brought against him. Those charges were then upheld by a US Federal Judge. ------ This article is a soft-pad for a criminal. Stop it.

Matheus28 6y ago
Did you do more than skim the article? The two are connected.
jcomis 6y ago
>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. What about this part?
IG_Semmelweiss 6y ago
deleting, post lacks prior context
- makomk 6y ago
  As I understand it, the big problem was that the "oil spilled by a chevron sub" wasn't, at least not according to the evidence that had been discovered through the usual legal process... it was probably spilled by a company owned by the Ecuadorian state long after Chevron and their subsidiaries ceased to have any involvement. Then some really shady business happened where, as far as anyone can tell, the Ecuadorian judge threw out the existing independent expert reports and replaced them with an "independent" report that was secretly ghost-written by him and his team for no justifiable reason in order to find Chevron liable anyway. He also left a considerable paper trail when doing this which the US courts got their hands on, hence all the hand-wringing in the article about "sensitive client information". (The confession from the judge probably didn't help, even if some of it was later retracted, but even without that he'd be in huge legal hot water.) Somehow, I suspect this quote from the article is at least as much about that development as it is about the lawyer in question somehow being persecuted by Big Oil: "It is this strange multi-front battle with one extraordinary explosive development after another. It has had this magical quality to enrage everyone involved in it."
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    > it was probably spilled by a company owned by the Ecuadorian state long after Chevron and their subsidiaries ceased to have any involvement Source?
    - makomk 6y ago
      At least some of this is mentioned in the US court judgement linked to in the article: https://casetext.com/case/chevron-corp-v-donziger-28 https://casetext.com/case/chevron-corp-v-donziger-28 (under the heading "Donziger Causes a Change to Less Probative Tests When the LAPs' Experts Find Pollution that Likely Was Not Caused by Texaco" and in subsequent and preceding sections). I think there may have been news coverage that went into further details, can't remember where though.
      - h0l0cube 6y ago
        Thank you for that. I view the case a little more skeptically now. The stakes were high on both sides, and ergo the motivation to distort the process just as high. However, the motivation for Chevron to mitigate environmental impacts in the 70s/80s/90s were negligible, until lawsuits and stories like this provided the PR incentive. So I'm inclined to believe they are responsible for much - but perhaps not all - of the destruction. I think it's a little naive to think otherwise.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  > US law and procedure is lights years ahead of other countries. > legal systems abroad are not build to defend the powerless, only the powerful. > US law procedure is very good at defending the powerless. That's almost always never the case elsewhere. None of this seems anything like true.
  - danlugo92 6y ago
    USA = good 3rd world = bad
    - yesenadam 6y ago
      There's that, and there's also the apparent belief that every other country besides the USA is a 3rd world country. And where the assumption that the US legal system is infinitely better than every other country's, comes from, I'm not sure.
      - perl4ever 6y ago
        I think it comes from the pattern of people seeking it out. A relevant example is Argentina's issuance of bonds in the past and subsequent travails. They didn't have to make themselves subject to US courts in the way they did. For some reason, despite all the disadvantages (potential and actual in hindsight) of borrowing in US dollars and being subject to New York law, they did it anyway.
- alistairSH 6y ago
  US law procedure is very good at defending the powerless. That's almost always never the case elsewhere. It was Chevron who wanted the case heard in Ecuador. It was originally filed in NY (Chevron's HQ at the time). US courts agreed Ecuador had jurisdiction and exacted a promise from Chevron to abide by the Ecuadorian court's ruling, which Chevron promptly ignored.
  - digitaltrees 6y ago
    Seems odd that the LAP lawyer would file a case in the US if his plan was to bribe Ecuadorian judges.
h0l0cube 6y ago
> This article is a soft-pad for a criminal. Stop it. This seems disingenuous. Casting a human right and environmental activist who's devoted himself to the well-being of Amazon tribes as a brazen criminal? On allegations, not a conviction, no less.
alistairSH 6y ago
You're factually wrong. Donzinger's house arrest stems from a contempt charge brought in the aftermath of the RICO suit brought against him by Chevron. He was placed under house arrest while his appeal of the contempt charge processes. Chevron would have had no reason to bring a RICO action against Donzinger if it were not for Donzinger's suits against Chevron in Ecuador.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tocoder 6y ago

The responsibility on one individual to change the world can be onerous. There needs to be viable alternatives, enforced by institutions, for correcting systemic issues.

diebeforei485 6y ago

Something sketchy is going on with these US judges handling the case. It's hard to conclude otherwise.

TeeMassive 6y ago
> His contempt charge will be heard by Judge Loretta Preska, who was on the advisory board of the New York chapter of the Federalist Society, who took the unusual step of appointing a law firm that has previously done work for Chevron, Seward & Kissel, to prosecute Donziger after the department of justice declined to take the case. I'm hearing more and more very bad stuff from both sides of the aisle about the Federalist Society, in particular their judges. Especially when it comes to protecting big institutionally connected organizations.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  The Federalist Society is more nakedly pro corporate than trying to protect "institutionally connected organizations." They don't try to hide this bias either.
  - TeeMassive 6y ago
    I had pro-corporations in mind, but corporations as the giants they are exist mainly due to the influence they have on politicians and institutions.
- colinmhayes 6y ago
  https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/ Frontline on the disastrous effects of the Federalist society and Mitch McConnell.

baybal2 6y ago

The matter is whether Chevron did spill oil, or did not spill oil. A case of evidentiary fraud to dismiss that in it entirety? How that works? Man A killed man B, caught on camera, red handed, with wittnesses. Man B's family pays off a wittness to testify, but get caught. Man A claims fraud, racketeering, that the whole case is "tainted," and throw it to the garbage bin. A zealously officious judge then happily complies using every technicality imaginable to cancel an overarching issue.

makomk 6y ago
How that worked is that the US courts concluded that Donziger's own chosen experts found smoking-gun evidence showing the oil was spilled not by Chevron but by Ecuador's state-owned oil company, and that he then decided to conceal this evidence from the Ecuadorian courts, get those experts to count all that oil as Chevron's doing, strong-armed one expert to send them a bunch of signed blank pieces of paper which were used to fraudulently claim a report was written by that expert, and engaged in a whole bunch of other equally shady business. From what I can tell, most of this seems to have been undisputed and based on his own words.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  > found smoking-gun evidence showing the oil was spilled not by Chevron but by Ecuador's state-owned oil company You provided the source in your comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26616258 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26616258 I think you can let people decide the narrative for themselves. The stakes were high on both sides, along with the motivation to distort the outcome, but also this was a time long before PR-blowback was even a consideration by big oil. It seems foolish to think that Chevron put the resources into mitigating environmental damage in some poor country for their oil projects in the 70s/80s. They only factor this in now because of the PR and local political implications.
  - marcinzm 6y ago
    >It seems foolish to think that Chevron put the resources into mitigating environmental damage in some poor country for their oil projects in the 70s/80s. No one is claiming they did as I'm reading it. They did however pay $40 million to fix some damage in 1995 and were granted indemnity by the Ecuador government in return. Other environmental damage was found but it likely happened after Chevron was no longer involved in the project. Together that means they're off the hook legally.

anonymousiam 6y ago

He probably should have got a lawyer when he was ordered to produce confidential materials. Instead, he tried to handle it himself. The moment he was faced with a contempt charge for not complying was the moment his personal liberty was at stake. That is the moment to get a lawyer and not try to represent yourself. Now he is in a world of hurt.

devmunchies 6y ago
its lawyers all the way down.
- m463 6y ago
  Well when you look at occupations of many politicians, it's lawyers all the way up too.
fennecfoxen 6y ago
I feel courts ought not to have their own power to punish people for contempt — certainly not in the US, anyway, where we go to great lengths to avoid giving power to tyrants. It's an unfortunate oversight in our Constitution. Consider, for instance, the unrelated case of Judge William H Coward, who ordered a man in contempt to write an apology to the court, post it on social media, and delete negative comments — running roughshod over what ought to have been his First Amendment rights: https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/article249893653.html https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/politics-government/a...
- jldugger 6y ago
  > I feel courts ought not to have the own power to punish people for contempt How do you handle people not complying with a court order like handing over evidence, paying fines, etc.?
  - retrac 6y ago
    The common law offence of contempt in the US, Canada, UK, etc. is an old power, vague in scope, and without much in the way of the normal process. The objection is usually not to the concept of punishing itself, but to the judge being effectively witness, prosecutor, judge and jury combined. So create a statute that outlines such offences. Charge people if they break it. Put it through the normal trial process. At a very minimum, the judge alleging contempt should not be the judge to try the matter. It might be appropriate to leave a curtailed power of contempt, so that judges can act quickly when they hear someone has bought a paper shredder. But I really don't think it's appropriate that a single judge can decide to have someone imprisoned potentially indefinitely without a proper trial governed by the normal procedures.

heretical_spoon 6y ago

This article provides a different perspective. Lots of good information that I couldn't find elsewhere https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2018/09/16/justice-delayed-but-not-denied-corrupt-ecuadorean-process-fails-in-international-arbitration/?sh=7e1fa1301698 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2018/09/16/justic...

bryan0 6y ago
It’s always interesting to read 2 news articles which seem to disagree on the key points. but maybe reading between the lines on the guardian article it’s that this lawyer did commit fraud, but the punishment has been disproportionately harsh.
donmcronald 6y ago
> Untrue: I hope the Ecuadorean government will one day compensate them for the awful pollution it has caused This is the part that does it for me. If Chevron participated in the destruction of their environment then Chevron should have to compensate them. Even if the law says they were allowed to it should be the type of thing that’s not tolerated. You can’t give someone permission to murder you and I think it should be the same for the environment. A government or land owner shouldn’t be able to give the ok for environmental destruction and everyone who’s involved should be liable.
- simonh 6y ago
  Pretty much everything humans do to live involve environmental destruction. You’d end up outlawing being human.
  - kennywinker 6y ago
    or, idk, radically change how we interact with the environment? Something that's desperately needed.
    - gameswithgo 6y ago

milkllz 6y ago

Now sure if anyone saw this before, but here is a link interviewing the lawyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5RZLyLCTo0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5RZLyLCTo0

spyridonas 6y ago

600 days. If he wanted he could've easily hacked the tracker and remove it. That's a lot of time to tinker with a box

m463 6y ago
He's probably furiously sending emails about it... https://xkcd.com/530/ https://xkcd.com/530/

fblp 6y ago

You can donate to the trust for the Legal Defense of Steven Donziger here: https://www.donzigerdefense.com/ https://www.donzigerdefense.com/

dang 6y ago

Previous threads: Chevron Is Trying to Crush a Prominent Climate Lawyer - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24124338 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24124338 - Aug 2020 (19 comments) Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22263996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22263996 - Feb 2020 (107 comments)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

tareqak 6y ago

A tweet where the lawyer states that other media outlets respond to appeals to report the same news with silence: https://www.twitter.com/SDonziger/status/1376212433258258435 https://www.twitter.com/SDonziger/status/1376212433258258435