5 ms·

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/Steve

by 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.
lesuorac 4y ago
> significant evidence of Donziger's fraud ended up being captured by a friendly documentary crew that had been following him around. I don't think thats a correct reading of the judgement at all. The "most thorough documentary" is the court referring to itself in the amount of data (i.e. documents) that it accumulates to show that it's improbable for the Ecuadorian judge to have written the initial decision (against chevron). > many court cases Donziger has lost Tthose court cases generally explicitly say they're not deciding if Chrevron broke any laws. They're generally pretty explicit in that they don't think Donziger won "correctly". i.e. with the PCA the PCA isn't saying that Chrevron didn't litter, they're saying we think the decision by initial judge was done improperly (i.e. it was ghost written). [1]: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2453 https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2453 > (4) The ‘Ghostwriting’ of the Lago Agrio Judgment: The facts established on the factual, expert and forensic evidence speak for themselves, as set out at length in Parts IV, V and VI above. 8.54 As there explained, the details as to how exactly all or material parts of the Lago Agrio Judgment came to be written, corruptly by certain of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’ representatives for Judge Zambrano, remain incomplete. The missing factual and forensic evidence is likely available only in Ecuador, if it still exists at all. Yet the circumstantial and other evidence adduced in this arbitration is overwhelming. Short of a signed confession by the miscreants, as rightly submitted by the Claimants at the end of the Track II Hearing, the evidence establishing ‘ghostwriting’ in this arbitration “must be the most thorough documentary, video, and testimonial proof of fraud ever put before an arbitral tribunal.”31
- Lazare 4y ago
  You are entirely correct, although I don't thin anything you said contradicted anything I wrote! It's quite clear that the residents of Lago Agrio suffered and are continuing to suffer; significant environmental damage was done and was not remediated. It's less clear who should be responsible for that; the damage was caused by a joint venture between a company that no longer exists (but which is now part of Chevron) and the Ecuadorian government (although the current Ecuadorian government doesn't recognise some actions that previous governments took as legitimate). It's certainly arguable that at least some responsibility may have come to rest with Chevron, yes. ...none of which has any bearing on the question of whether Donziger bribed a judge or whatever.
shkkmo 4y ago
"Significant evidence of Donziger's Fraud" seems to only be backed up by the following line from the article you cite: > showed an environmental scientist present at a legal strategy meeting of plaintiffs' lawyers; the same scientist was later appointed by the Ecuadorian court as an ostensibly impartial expert to write a report on technical issue So the evidence shows that one scientific expert wasn't fully independent. Contrast this with the clear evidence of conflicts of interests from the US judges, the bribing of the oil company's star witness and their eventual recantation of some of their testimony. It sure looks like there's far more evidence of fraud from Chevron than whatever the documentary crew caught.
toss1 4y ago
The article specifically pointed out that the fraud charges are based on a single accusation of a former Ecuadoran judge whom Chevron moved him & his family to the United States, paid his income taxes, and had their lawyers coach him for 53 days. He since recanted his false testimony. Even if there is actually some kind of wrongdoing on Donziger's side, the blatant multi-million dollar effort to discredit him and blatantly ignore the law on Chevron's part so taints any such evidence that it should be considered worthless. The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer.
- Lazare 4y ago
  > The article specifically pointed out that the fraud charges are based on a single accusation of a former Ecuadoran judge The article was simply incorrect to do so. Again, there was an actual film crew following Donziger around; a key scene was cut from the theatrical release because someone on Donziger's team said that what it showed was "so serious we could lose everything". > He since recanted his false testimony. He has recanted some testimony. Not all. And to be clear, the options here seem to be 1) bribed by Chevron to falsely claim he was bribed by Donziger or 2) bribed by both Donziger and later Chevron. He clearly has lied in exchange for money; now we're just trying to decide which one of his paid-for stories is true, but there's no particular reason to think any of them are true. > The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer. The problem with cases like this is that there are a lot of different sides, and it's not clear any of them are "good guys", with the exception of the actual residents of Lago Agrio, who unfortunately seem likely to lose come what may. In any case, if two wrongdoers end up in a dispute, if you pick a side, you'll end up siding with a wrongdoer, yes. Which I would suggest you are, in fact, doing. Sometimes neither side is worth backing.
- IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
  You are right on the money but let me add even more content. - The alleged wrongdoing broke rules in US laws but are permissible (and even common) in the ecuadorean legal framework. - the alleged wrong doing took place in Ecuador, while the case was being tried in an ecuadorean court. -
_23sd 4y ago
Yes, there’s definitely a lot more to the story than what is described in the article, or indeed most of the articles that are based primarily on interviews with Donziger. It’s hard to find a single element of the case that hasn’t been the subject of fierce controversy. The arbitration decision you referenced [1] also relied heavily on disputed evidence, but they tended to give it credence anyway. I don’t think it’s very controversial that Judge Lewis Kaplan has been remarkably hostile toward Donziger, just depends on whether you believe Donziger deserves the harsh treatment. I think it would help if the case got a proper review from a cooler headed judge, but with the current trajectory of the US judicial system that seems to be impossible. [1] https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/stories/documents/international-tribunal-rules-for-chevron-in-ecuador-case.pdf https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/stories/documents/in..., especially part IV where the use of Guerra’s testimony is explained on page 139 of the PDF.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  No, it is about prejudicial behavior by a very obviously biased judge who should have recused himself. That he engaged other equally clearly biased judges to pile on makes it worse. Kaplan should be impeached and removed. Whatever this guy did, he is just one guy. Kaplan is wielding and abusing the power of the US govt. That is always worse than anything an individual can do.
  - _23sd 4y ago
    I don't think I disagree with you, was just trying to provide additional context on the arbitration decision and why it doesn't necessarily prove the Ecuador verdicts were fraudulent. From what I've read, some of the people defending Kaplan's behavior think that Donziger deserves to be treated dismissively for making supposedly unreasonable demands of the court, which is sometimes a type of argument I'm sympathetic to when reading about vexatious litigants, but Kaplan has been a lot more than just dismissive and has taken it a lot further than what I'd be comfortable with even for someone who was indisputably acting in bad faith (and it seems quite possible that Donziger is not only acting in good faith, but actually in the right).

by Lazare 4y ago

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.

lesuorac 4y ago

> significant evidence of Donziger's fraud ended up being captured by a friendly documentary crew that had been following him around. I don't think thats a correct reading of the judgement at all. The "most thorough documentary" is the court referring to itself in the amount of data (i.e. documents) that it accumulates to show that it's improbable for the Ecuadorian judge to have written the initial decision (against chevron). > many court cases Donziger has lost Tthose court cases generally explicitly say they're not deciding if Chrevron broke any laws. They're generally pretty explicit in that they don't think Donziger won "correctly". i.e. with the PCA the PCA isn't saying that Chrevron didn't litter, they're saying we think the decision by initial judge was done improperly (i.e. it was ghost written). [1]: https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2453 https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/2453 > (4) The ‘Ghostwriting’ of the Lago Agrio Judgment: The facts established on the factual, expert and forensic evidence speak for themselves, as set out at length in Parts IV, V and VI above. 8.54 As there explained, the details as to how exactly all or material parts of the Lago Agrio Judgment came to be written, corruptly by certain of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs’ representatives for Judge Zambrano, remain incomplete. The missing factual and forensic evidence is likely available only in Ecuador, if it still exists at all. Yet the circumstantial and other evidence adduced in this arbitration is overwhelming. Short of a signed confession by the miscreants, as rightly submitted by the Claimants at the end of the Track II Hearing, the evidence establishing ‘ghostwriting’ in this arbitration “must be the most thorough documentary, video, and testimonial proof of fraud ever put before an arbitral tribunal.”31

Lazare 4y ago
You are entirely correct, although I don't thin anything you said contradicted anything I wrote! It's quite clear that the residents of Lago Agrio suffered and are continuing to suffer; significant environmental damage was done and was not remediated. It's less clear who should be responsible for that; the damage was caused by a joint venture between a company that no longer exists (but which is now part of Chevron) and the Ecuadorian government (although the current Ecuadorian government doesn't recognise some actions that previous governments took as legitimate). It's certainly arguable that at least some responsibility may have come to rest with Chevron, yes. ...none of which has any bearing on the question of whether Donziger bribed a judge or whatever.

shkkmo 4y ago

"Significant evidence of Donziger's Fraud" seems to only be backed up by the following line from the article you cite: > showed an environmental scientist present at a legal strategy meeting of plaintiffs' lawyers; the same scientist was later appointed by the Ecuadorian court as an ostensibly impartial expert to write a report on technical issue So the evidence shows that one scientific expert wasn't fully independent. Contrast this with the clear evidence of conflicts of interests from the US judges, the bribing of the oil company's star witness and their eventual recantation of some of their testimony. It sure looks like there's far more evidence of fraud from Chevron than whatever the documentary crew caught.

toss1 4y ago

The article specifically pointed out that the fraud charges are based on a single accusation of a former Ecuadoran judge whom Chevron moved him & his family to the United States, paid his income taxes, and had their lawyers coach him for 53 days. He since recanted his false testimony. Even if there is actually some kind of wrongdoing on Donziger's side, the blatant multi-million dollar effort to discredit him and blatantly ignore the law on Chevron's part so taints any such evidence that it should be considered worthless. The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer.

Lazare 4y ago
> The article specifically pointed out that the fraud charges are based on a single accusation of a former Ecuadoran judge The article was simply incorrect to do so. Again, there was an actual film crew following Donziger around; a key scene was cut from the theatrical release because someone on Donziger's team said that what it showed was "so serious we could lose everything". > He since recanted his false testimony. He has recanted some testimony. Not all. And to be clear, the options here seem to be 1) bribed by Chevron to falsely claim he was bribed by Donziger or 2) bribed by both Donziger and later Chevron. He clearly has lied in exchange for money; now we're just trying to decide which one of his paid-for stories is true, but there's no particular reason to think any of them are true. > The "both-sidesing" it as you are doing, you very nicely demonstrate how it's so easy to fall into the trap of being "fair" but actually siding with the wrongdoer. The problem with cases like this is that there are a lot of different sides, and it's not clear any of them are "good guys", with the exception of the actual residents of Lago Agrio, who unfortunately seem likely to lose come what may. In any case, if two wrongdoers end up in a dispute, if you pick a side, you'll end up siding with a wrongdoer, yes. Which I would suggest you are, in fact, doing. Sometimes neither side is worth backing.
IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
You are right on the money but let me add even more content. - The alleged wrongdoing broke rules in US laws but are permissible (and even common) in the ecuadorean legal framework. - the alleged wrong doing took place in Ecuador, while the case was being tried in an ecuadorean court. -

_23sd 4y ago

Yes, there’s definitely a lot more to the story than what is described in the article, or indeed most of the articles that are based primarily on interviews with Donziger. It’s hard to find a single element of the case that hasn’t been the subject of fierce controversy. The arbitration decision you referenced [1] also relied heavily on disputed evidence, but they tended to give it credence anyway. I don’t think it’s very controversial that Judge Lewis Kaplan has been remarkably hostile toward Donziger, just depends on whether you believe Donziger deserves the harsh treatment. I think it would help if the case got a proper review from a cooler headed judge, but with the current trajectory of the US judicial system that seems to be impossible. [1] https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/stories/documents/international-tribunal-rules-for-chevron-in-ecuador-case.pdf https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/stories/documents/in..., especially part IV where the use of Guerra’s testimony is explained on page 139 of the PDF.

ncmncm 4y ago
No, it is about prejudicial behavior by a very obviously biased judge who should have recused himself. That he engaged other equally clearly biased judges to pile on makes it worse. Kaplan should be impeached and removed. Whatever this guy did, he is just one guy. Kaplan is wielding and abusing the power of the US govt. That is always worse than anything an individual can do.
- _23sd 4y ago
  I don't think I disagree with you, was just trying to provide additional context on the arbitration decision and why it doesn't necessarily prove the Ecuador verdicts were fraudulent. From what I've read, some of the people defending Kaplan's behavior think that Donziger deserves to be treated dismissively for making supposedly unreasonable demands of the court, which is sometimes a type of argument I'm sympathetic to when reading about vexatious litigants, but Kaplan has been a lot more than just dismissive and has taken it a lot further than what I'd be comfortable with even for someone who was indisputably acting in bad faith (and it seems quite possible that Donziger is not only acting in good faith, but actually in the right).