3 ms·

> 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 t

> 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

>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.