161–170 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a hell of a cynnical conspiracy but then again, people like Jill Stein exist.
This is funny. I didn't know who Jill Stein is, so I asked an LLM about how she is relevant. Instead of explaining how she might be involved in evil conspiracies, it thinks that Jill Stein is relevant because, "like a charged college kid," she was apparently at this Greenpeace protest! Hilarious.
I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wr…
This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation. This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In other words Greenpeace is trying to muddy the waters and hide their guilt by painting themselves as the victims of injustice? How very original..
Yeah we're dealing with a mud fight between two highly resourced adversaries who are practiced in bullshit underhanded tactics and influence operations.
Wait til you hear about Steven Donziger. Steven is a lawyer who helped Ecuador sue Chevron who was polluting massively. The Ecuadorians won and secured an historic $9.5 billion judgment because it was so egregious. Did that end the matter? No. Chevron ran to American courts and argued that Donziger helped secure this judgment by committing fraud. I believe the evidence of this was a video showing a minister and Donzi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oil companies have been suppressing climate change research for decades to keep cooking the earth for profits. Is that not corruption? I suppose if you are economically exposed to these gains, don’t believe in climate change, and/or won’t be here for the bad times from this, the facts may not matter to your mental model. The facts remain that climate change is real and oil companies are doing their best to extract ev…
Oil companies haven't done a damn thing. We are the cause of global warming. Every time we pump gas into our car, buy anything that came from far away, or use any technology dependent on oil. Blaming oil companies is childish garbage people do to avoid recognizing their personal share of the responsibility.
The Climate Town channel on Youtube has lots of video's on this, such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J9LOqiXdpE
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thread we're in started with the discussion of fraudulent transfers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47220263 You said the Texas Two Step can't be used for fraudulent transfers (or at least, that's how I interpreted) and offered J&J's case as an example. My reply to that is J&J's Texas Two Step failed for a different reason, unrelated to fraudulent transfers.
No. My OP said that Texas Two step was used all the time. I said J&J tried to use Texas Two Step and it ultimately failed. And yes it did fail mostly because it was not being used in good faith.
As of today, judgments against J&J total to less than $10b. J&J committed up to $61.5b to LTL, the company it spun off. Simple arithmetic shows us all current judgments will be satisfied. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47222778
The judge used this $61.5b commitment - which J&J made to ensure LTL would pay for all the lawsuits J&J lost - as proof that LTL wasn't actually bankrupt. Which is weird but also correct.
Where is the bad faith today? I mean it's possible J&J has done some internal analysis and expects to be on the hook for more than that in the future. Or there's some other arcane legal issue I don't understand. And in that sense committing the $61.5b is a smart way of capping their losses while still looking like good guys today. There's no evidence of that right now though.
To re-iterate, the bankruptcy was rejected because of how it was structured. Not because there was an attempt to dodge liability. To me that's a more damning indictment of the legal system because it implies liability dodging might have worked if it were structured right.
For context, a statement from the legal experts who monitored the trial. > It is our collective assessment that the jury verdict against Greenpeace in North Dakota reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense. https://www.trialmonitors.org/statement-of-independent-trial...
As an outsider, why is this a credible institution over the jury and judge?
https://www.trialmonitors.org/meet-the-committee
Plenty of accomplished people there, but as a group "unbiased observers" isn't the first phrase that comes to mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oil companies have been suppressing climate change research for decades to keep cooking the earth for profits. Is that not corruption? I suppose if you are economically exposed to these gains, don’t believe in climate change, and/or won’t be here for the bad times from this, the facts may not matter to your mental model. The facts remain that climate change is real and oil companies are doing their best to extract ev…
Oil companies haven't done a damn thing. We are the cause of global warming. Every time we pump gas into our car, buy anything that came from far away, or use any technology dependent on oil. Blaming oil companies is childish garbage people do to avoid recognizing their personal share of the responsibility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is only possible if you can somehow square a pipeline company's activities as intersecting with the arc of justice. as it stands, they're actively hastening the degradation of land, water, wildlife, human life and surrounding climates everywhere they operate.
Regardless of what you think of pipelines, under the current system they have the protection of the law. Courts are judging based on what the law says, not on the sense of "justice" that you seem to be operating on. As you yourself said, they may not intersect.
i'm specifically responding to your use of the word "justice" and how those two do not always align - it's a lack of precise definition, or a disagreement in terms. this is one of the clearest examples of that phenomenon that exists, especially when you consider the lengths the fossil fuel industry has gone to hide and misdirect evidence of the negative environmental impacts of their business model.