17 ms·

I've been targeted with a vicious corporate counterattack (2021)

347 points by robtherobber 4y ago

hulitu 4y ago
A very nice explanation on a functioning democracy. And of course Ecuador is just another vasal state.
fjfaase 4y ago
He was released on April 25, 2022. https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/26/steven_donziger_freedom_chevron_ecuador_amazon https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/26/steven_donziger_freed...
- ratg13 4y ago
  Released after being held several times over the maximum allowed limit, and they took his law license away. The judge responsible should be disbarred.
  - nceqs3 4y ago
    He bribed judges
    - platz 4y ago
      If that is true, should that waive his rights in the american legal system?
      - braingenious 4y ago
        This stuff is part of why I love this website! You’ll always, _ALWAYS_ find folks that will inexplicably carry water for any large corporation (for example, Chevron) and due to the way the rules are structured, you’re explicitly not allowed to poke at them about it. You can’t even bring up the content of the rule without breaking the rule in this case! 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.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        Yes. Why is that even a question?
        Centigonal 4y ago
        I assert that you have bribed judges. Your rights to due process and a fair trial are now waived. Please report to your nearest prison.
        dylan604 4y ago
        You've moved the goal posts. The question was "If that was true" if (true) { yes } else { no } what's difficult here? There was no #include <assert.h> in the original comment
        lesuorac 4y ago
        You are moving the goal posts right now. Donziger didn't get convicted of bribery so at the moment its just an accusation.
        dylan604 4y ago
        That's not the question that was asked
        Centigonal 4y ago
        Okay yeah, you got me there
notlukesky 4y ago
pydry 4y ago
When I look at how figures like Donziger, Assange and Snowden are treated I cant help but think our society is a lot more like Russia than we think we are - differing mostly by a matter of degree, rather than principle. 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.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Who's the "we" you speak of? The "we're barely any better than them" or "we're just like them but with better optics" sentiment you profess is one of the common ones to find around here. 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.
  - pydry 4y ago
    Perhaps they are, but we are still routinely told that ours is different - better, special, more principled, fairer, committed to democracy, human rights and freedom of expression. I think the West used to be better at putting these principles into action although it's true if never has been very consistent.
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      > Perhaps they are, but we are still routinely told that ours is different - better, special, more principled, fairer, committed to democracy, human rights and freedom of expression. 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.
pain2022 4y ago
This story is scary and heartbreaking. The guy represented poor people in a foreign country against brutal corporation and now his life and career are ruined
- lupire 4y ago
  His career is still active and he is out of jail now so his life is back on track too. And his imprisonment brought far more attention to his cause than he had before. House arrest was a miscarriage of justice and bad, but it was during Covid when everyone was basically house arrested.
- nerdponx 4y ago
  And there's an obviously corrupt judge "on the loose", posing a credible threat that keeps who-knows-what-other abuses from ever being brought to light.
nisegami 4y ago
Outsourcing violence to the state is probably the single biggest source of suffering in modern society.
- baxtr 4y ago
  I am not sure if the other options are much better. Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like, working for those with the biggest wallets is not ideal either.
  - nisegami 4y ago
    Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like is just outsourcing violence to a different entity. For something to truly be an "other" option, violence would have to be something held and used at the individual level.
    - baxtr 4y ago
      Yeah, of course. That option sounds great on paper. At the same time, I wonder how you would avoid two of those individuals banding together to harass another individual.
- b112 4y ago
  Because lynch mobs are better? That is what a democratic state is supposed to replace.
- pydry 4y ago
  The state isnt infosys in the free market of violence. By definition it's the entity with a monopoly on violence.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  State violence keeps the peace. If you think of your own life (for most people I think), there's some incident in the past where you or somebody you love was hurt, and if it weren't for state violence, you'd have felt the obligation to hurt the perpetrator back. That's not good for the victim of crime, because not only are they suffering from the crime, but now they feel obligated to do take a dangerous, difficult action that they're unaccustomed to, or to feel ashamed for not having done it. It's not good for society, because the friends and loved ones of the perpetrator of the crime may have a different view of it, and now for you, you're the perpetrator of unpunished harm to their loved one. That's how family feuds start. 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.
lupire 4y ago
[2021]
dctoedt 4y ago
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Kaplan's_2014_ruling_in_the_RICO_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Kaplan's_2014_...
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  The context in the Wikipedia article seems a lot more favorable to Chevron[0] than the Esquire article. I know, I know, NPOV and all that is Wikipedia's MO. But everyone here seems to be thinking that all companies have a magic "put person in prison" button on their desk. While I do have very many complaints about the civil legal system this isn't exactly what happened. 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
Threeve303 4y ago
This kind of stuff happens more often than people want to admit. For example, I have discovered that I have no constitutional right to a trial or due process. A multi year long Federal investigation was done based on a false accusation. My career and everything was taken. I have never been charged with anything and it is implied that there is no crime to even charge me with. I have taken all of this to Twitter recently (link in my profile). The past few weeks I have been asking the state and federal to arrest me, even though I didnt do anything, just so I would have a right to an attorney to be honored and begin the process of defending myself. But they havent even replied now for months. 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.
- rehash3 4y ago
  Twitter is a horrible way to discover your full story, maybe write it in a blog some place? Or even do a Ask HN thread..
  - Threeve303 4y ago
    I agree. Something like substack would work a lot better since this is a complicated years long situation. After much thought, the ability to message people and link them back to it like I have been doing will be useful if I can ever have my day in court. I am able to tag people and agencies involved and their response or lack of will become very useful some day. Substack, etc is missing that one feature. 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.
    - dncornholio 4y ago
a2tech 4y ago
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. These people/companies have lawyers on retainer that they're already paying so its essentially free for them to file bogus suits and motions to cause havoc in your life. What are you going to do? Sue them back? Thats the world they live in, and its a world that as a small time person or corporation you can not win in (long term). 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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hackernewds 4y ago
  Gawker deserved someone to come after then as Thiel did, for what they did to him, Hulk Hogan and others
  - derbOac 4y ago
    For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree. The people Thiel should have gone after are those who leaked to the public. 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.
    - 4y ago
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
I opened up the article mildly curious about which internet personality was about to make the outlandish claim to the biggest victim crown for internet clicks. 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Cryovac,_Inc. (2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamin...
- simiones 4y ago
  It should be noted that a significant difference between Steven Danziger and Erin Brokovich is that he took on a US energy corporation which was acting against non-US citizens. 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.
- tintedfireglass 4y ago
exabrial 4y ago
The judges need to be jailed. There was a time when tarring/feathering was an acceptable practice too.
- vlan0 4y ago
  - ccvannorman 4y ago
    This comment is inciting violence and advocating for prosecution without due process. Would you like to be pulled from your home by a mob, because some internet trolls said you did something wrong? That is the world we will head toward with this mentality.
    - vlan0 4y ago
      I don't disagree with you. It's a terrible situation to be in. Violence should always be the last resort. >Would you like to be pulled from your home by a mob, because some internet trolls said you did something wrong? Remember, the context of this is oil firms. Decades of scientific research show they were wrong. We even have evidence showing they knew they were wrong and purposely mislead folks. All for silly pieces of paper we call money. You're literally sympathizing with evil. So what else can we do against oil exces that manipulate and lie for decades? How can we have true accountability and change if the criminals own the system? Do you think they will one day hold themselves accountable and stop damaging our world? Do you think anything at all will happen before climate change causes the suffering and deaths of millions more? What do we do when the system is broken and no longer serves the people? Why let hundreds or thousands of people ruin the habitat for billions? That's simply unfathomable.
    - srean 4y ago
      That is a good politically correct line, but accumulated injustices do find uncontrolled release when the justice infrastructure ignores them long term.
- glennvtx 4y ago
Lazare 4y ago
It's worth noting that there is another side to the story. As Wikipedia notes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger), significant evidence of Donziger's fraud ended up being captured by a friendly documentary crew that had been following him around. 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.
- scythe 4y ago
  Donziger did some bad things. That's mostly indisputable, although it's questionable how much control an American lawyer had over a team of Ecuadorians operating in Ecuador. But the sanctions carried out against him were an atrocious breach of ordinary legal procedures. Just because someone's moral character isn't perfect doesn't mean their legal rights disappear. John Adams would be horrified.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  They're misdemeanor charges, though. I don't believe he was criminally charged in the US for the (alleged) fraud/bribery, only for contempt because he refused to produce documents as ordered by the court. Regardless of the evidence for or against his alleged past actions it's excessive to confine him to house arrest for 18 months when the maximum sentence for the charges, if proven, is just six months.
  - Lazare 4y ago
    The court system does need a way to force people to follow instructions. Since the legal system found Donziger committed fraud, it makes sense that they'd ask him to return the funds. Since he refused, it follows they'd take steps to compel him. 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.
drazle 4y ago
While the atrocities committed by Texaco and the Ecuador government in Ecuador are heinous, Steven is a class action lawyer that was trying to line his own and his backer's pockets. I agree that Chevron and US judges appear to have crossed the line and hope that is prosecuted. But you should really research the whole story before you honor the lawyer's actions in any way. And the whole suit was frivolous anyway as the Ecuador government had already absolved Texaco/Chevron of all liability. Their own documentary was very damning even before the outtakes where revealed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrZRvgwBS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrZRvgwBS8. This guy is getting way too much mileage out of this 20+ year lawsuit and should stop representing himself as the victim. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/boutrous.pdf https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/boutrous.... '"Indeed, Maria Aguinda, the lead plaintiff in the Chevron litigation, admitted that when the plaintiffs’ lawyers originally instructed her to sign the litigation papers, she thought she was signing up for free medicine: in her own words, the lawyer told her, “In four months, I will bring medications so you will be healed. But first, sign this paper here.”'
- ncmncm 4y ago
  The issue is corrupt US judges. 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.
revscat 4y ago
Oil is the greatest evil mankind has ever encountered. Change my mind.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
  "The love of money is the root of all evil." It's as true today as it ever was.
  - revscat 4y ago
    Degrees of evil, though. Pursuing money through, say, selling shoes is much, MUCH less evil than the crimes Chevron, Saudi Arabia, and the other FF companies have committed, continue to commit, and will commit tomorrow. 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.
- stuckinhell 4y ago
  I'll try. Oil without humans, doesn't seem to do much of anything. I think its moreso that Humans are the greatest evil that Humans have ever encountered. "Hell is other people."
fencepost 4y ago
While what happened seems wrong based on the article, it's clearly not the "most vicious corporate counterattack in US history." No Pinkertons, no machine guns, no families. 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.
ftyhbhyjnjk 4y ago
The real shameful here are the those judges. Those greedy, corrupt, soul-less judges.
otikik 4y ago
I have no means of checking the veracity of this article, but it certainly paints that Kaplan judge as a corrupt crook. Is there anything the general public can do to help? Like, write to a congressman or something?

347 points by robtherobber 4y ago

A very nice explanation on a functioning democracy. And of course Ecuador is just another vasal state.

He was released on April 25, 2022. https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/26/steven_donziger_freedom_chevron_ecuador_amazon https://www.democracynow.org/2022/4/26/steven_donziger_freed...

ratg13 4y ago
Released after being held several times over the maximum allowed limit, and they took his law license away. The judge responsible should be disbarred.
- nceqs3 4y ago
  He bribed judges
  - platz 4y ago
    If that is true, should that waive his rights in the american legal system?
    - braingenious 4y ago
      This stuff is part of why I love this website! You’ll always, _ALWAYS_ find folks that will inexplicably carry water for any large corporation (for example, Chevron) and due to the way the rules are structured, you’re explicitly not allowed to poke at them about it. You can’t even bring up the content of the rule without breaking the rule in this case! 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.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Yes. Why is that even a question?
      - Centigonal 4y ago
        I assert that you have bribed judges. Your rights to due process and a fair trial are now waived. Please report to your nearest prison.
        dylan604 4y ago
        You've moved the goal posts. The question was "If that was true" if (true) { yes } else { no } what's difficult here? There was no #include <assert.h> in the original comment
        lesuorac 4y ago
        You are moving the goal posts right now. Donziger didn't get convicted of bribery so at the moment its just an accusation.
        dylan604 4y ago
        That's not the question that was asked
        Centigonal 4y ago
        Okay yeah, you got me there

notlukesky 4y ago

pydry 4y ago

When I look at how figures like Donziger, Assange and Snowden are treated I cant help but think our society is a lot more like Russia than we think we are - differing mostly by a matter of degree, rather than principle. 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.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Who's the "we" you speak of? The "we're barely any better than them" or "we're just like them but with better optics" sentiment you profess is one of the common ones to find around here. 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.
- pydry 4y ago
  Perhaps they are, but we are still routinely told that ours is different - better, special, more principled, fairer, committed to democracy, human rights and freedom of expression. I think the West used to be better at putting these principles into action although it's true if never has been very consistent.
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    > Perhaps they are, but we are still routinely told that ours is different - better, special, more principled, fairer, committed to democracy, human rights and freedom of expression. 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.

pain2022 4y ago

This story is scary and heartbreaking. The guy represented poor people in a foreign country against brutal corporation and now his life and career are ruined

lupire 4y ago
His career is still active and he is out of jail now so his life is back on track too. And his imprisonment brought far more attention to his cause than he had before. House arrest was a miscarriage of justice and bad, but it was during Covid when everyone was basically house arrested.
nerdponx 4y ago
And there's an obviously corrupt judge "on the loose", posing a credible threat that keeps who-knows-what-other abuses from ever being brought to light.

nisegami 4y ago

Outsourcing violence to the state is probably the single biggest source of suffering in modern society.

baxtr 4y ago
I am not sure if the other options are much better. Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like, working for those with the biggest wallets is not ideal either.
- nisegami 4y ago
  Having armed militias / mafia organizations that operate state-like is just outsourcing violence to a different entity. For something to truly be an "other" option, violence would have to be something held and used at the individual level.
  - baxtr 4y ago
    Yeah, of course. That option sounds great on paper. At the same time, I wonder how you would avoid two of those individuals banding together to harass another individual.
b112 4y ago
Because lynch mobs are better? That is what a democratic state is supposed to replace.
pydry 4y ago
The state isnt infosys in the free market of violence. By definition it's the entity with a monopoly on violence.
pessimizer 4y ago
State violence keeps the peace. If you think of your own life (for most people I think), there's some incident in the past where you or somebody you love was hurt, and if it weren't for state violence, you'd have felt the obligation to hurt the perpetrator back. That's not good for the victim of crime, because not only are they suffering from the crime, but now they feel obligated to do take a dangerous, difficult action that they're unaccustomed to, or to feel ashamed for not having done it. It's not good for society, because the friends and loved ones of the perpetrator of the crime may have a different view of it, and now for you, you're the perpetrator of unpunished harm to their loved one. That's how family feuds start. 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.

lupire 4y ago

[2021]

dctoedt 4y ago

Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Kaplan's_2014_ruling_in_the_RICO_case https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger#Kaplan's_2014_...

kmeisthax 4y ago
The context in the Wikipedia article seems a lot more favorable to Chevron[0] than the Esquire article. I know, I know, NPOV and all that is Wikipedia's MO. But everyone here seems to be thinking that all companies have a magic "put person in prison" button on their desk. While I do have very many complaints about the civil legal system this isn't exactly what happened. 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

Threeve303 4y ago

This kind of stuff happens more often than people want to admit. For example, I have discovered that I have no constitutional right to a trial or due process. A multi year long Federal investigation was done based on a false accusation. My career and everything was taken. I have never been charged with anything and it is implied that there is no crime to even charge me with. I have taken all of this to Twitter recently (link in my profile). The past few weeks I have been asking the state and federal to arrest me, even though I didnt do anything, just so I would have a right to an attorney to be honored and begin the process of defending myself. But they havent even replied now for months. 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.

rehash3 4y ago
Twitter is a horrible way to discover your full story, maybe write it in a blog some place? Or even do a Ask HN thread..
- Threeve303 4y ago
  I agree. Something like substack would work a lot better since this is a complicated years long situation. After much thought, the ability to message people and link them back to it like I have been doing will be useful if I can ever have my day in court. I am able to tag people and agencies involved and their response or lack of will become very useful some day. Substack, etc is missing that one feature. 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.
  - dncornholio 4y ago

a2tech 4y ago

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. These people/companies have lawyers on retainer that they're already paying so its essentially free for them to file bogus suits and motions to cause havoc in your life. What are you going to do? Sue them back? Thats the world they live in, and its a world that as a small time person or corporation you can not win in (long term). 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.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hackernewds 4y ago
Gawker deserved someone to come after then as Thiel did, for what they did to him, Hulk Hogan and others
- derbOac 4y ago
  For what it's worth, I respectfully disagree. The people Thiel should have gone after are those who leaked to the public. 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.
  - 4y ago

IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago

I opened up the article mildly curious about which internet personality was about to make the outlandish claim to the biggest victim crown for internet clicks. 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 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Cryovac,_Inc. (2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_groundwater_contamin...

simiones 4y ago
It should be noted that a significant difference between Steven Danziger and Erin Brokovich is that he took on a US energy corporation which was acting against non-US citizens. 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.
tintedfireglass 4y ago

exabrial 4y ago

The judges need to be jailed. There was a time when tarring/feathering was an acceptable practice too.

vlan0 4y ago
- ccvannorman 4y ago
  This comment is inciting violence and advocating for prosecution without due process. Would you like to be pulled from your home by a mob, because some internet trolls said you did something wrong? That is the world we will head toward with this mentality.
  - vlan0 4y ago
    I don't disagree with you. It's a terrible situation to be in. Violence should always be the last resort. >Would you like to be pulled from your home by a mob, because some internet trolls said you did something wrong? Remember, the context of this is oil firms. Decades of scientific research show they were wrong. We even have evidence showing they knew they were wrong and purposely mislead folks. All for silly pieces of paper we call money. You're literally sympathizing with evil. So what else can we do against oil exces that manipulate and lie for decades? How can we have true accountability and change if the criminals own the system? Do you think they will one day hold themselves accountable and stop damaging our world? Do you think anything at all will happen before climate change causes the suffering and deaths of millions more? What do we do when the system is broken and no longer serves the people? Why let hundreds or thousands of people ruin the habitat for billions? That's simply unfathomable.
  - srean 4y ago
    That is a good politically correct line, but accumulated injustices do find uncontrolled release when the justice infrastructure ignores them long term.
glennvtx 4y ago

Lazare 4y ago

It's worth noting that there is another side to the story. As Wikipedia notes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger), significant evidence of Donziger's fraud ended up being captured by a friendly documentary crew that had been following him around. 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.

scythe 4y ago
Donziger did some bad things. That's mostly indisputable, although it's questionable how much control an American lawyer had over a team of Ecuadorians operating in Ecuador. But the sanctions carried out against him were an atrocious breach of ordinary legal procedures. Just because someone's moral character isn't perfect doesn't mean their legal rights disappear. John Adams would be horrified.
elliekelly 4y ago
They're misdemeanor charges, though. I don't believe he was criminally charged in the US for the (alleged) fraud/bribery, only for contempt because he refused to produce documents as ordered by the court. Regardless of the evidence for or against his alleged past actions it's excessive to confine him to house arrest for 18 months when the maximum sentence for the charges, if proven, is just six months.
- Lazare 4y ago
  The court system does need a way to force people to follow instructions. Since the legal system found Donziger committed fraud, it makes sense that they'd ask him to return the funds. Since he refused, it follows they'd take steps to compel him. 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.

drazle 4y ago

While the atrocities committed by Texaco and the Ecuador government in Ecuador are heinous, Steven is a class action lawyer that was trying to line his own and his backer's pockets. I agree that Chevron and US judges appear to have crossed the line and hope that is prosecuted. But you should really research the whole story before you honor the lawyer's actions in any way. And the whole suit was frivolous anyway as the Ecuador government had already absolved Texaco/Chevron of all liability. Their own documentary was very damning even before the outtakes where revealed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrZRvgwBS8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvrZRvgwBS8. This guy is getting way too much mileage out of this 20+ year lawsuit and should stop representing himself as the victim. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/boutrous.pdf https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/boutrous.... '"Indeed, Maria Aguinda, the lead plaintiff in the Chevron litigation, admitted that when the plaintiffs’ lawyers originally instructed her to sign the litigation papers, she thought she was signing up for free medicine: in her own words, the lawyer told her, “In four months, I will bring medications so you will be healed. But first, sign this paper here.”'

ncmncm 4y ago
The issue is corrupt US judges. 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.

revscat 4y ago

Oil is the greatest evil mankind has ever encountered. Change my mind.

TheRealDunkirk 4y ago
"The love of money is the root of all evil." It's as true today as it ever was.
- revscat 4y ago
  Degrees of evil, though. Pursuing money through, say, selling shoes is much, MUCH less evil than the crimes Chevron, Saudi Arabia, and the other FF companies have committed, continue to commit, and will commit tomorrow. 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.
stuckinhell 4y ago
I'll try. Oil without humans, doesn't seem to do much of anything. I think its moreso that Humans are the greatest evil that Humans have ever encountered. "Hell is other people."

fencepost 4y ago

While what happened seems wrong based on the article, it's clearly not the "most vicious corporate counterattack in US history." No Pinkertons, no machine guns, no families. 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.

ftyhbhyjnjk 4y ago

The real shameful here are the those judges. Those greedy, corrupt, soul-less judges.

otikik 4y ago

I have no means of checking the veracity of this article, but it certainly paints that Kaplan judge as a corrupt crook. Is there anything the general public can do to help? Like, write to a congressman or something?