5 ms·

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
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  > But everyone here seems to be thinking that all companies have a magic "put person in prison" button on their desk. 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.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    >No one said anything like this 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.

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

TomSwirly 4y ago
> But everyone here seems to be thinking that all companies have a magic "put person in prison" button on their desk. 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.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  >No one said anything like this 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.