Live data from Hacker News

Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

theintercept.com

71–80 of 114 posts

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#72
post #63
post #34

From https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/40738-U-S-Judge-Kapla... >The evidence demonstrates that Chevron sent the funds in 2013 to the account of Max Gitter, a court-appointed Special Master who at the time was working as Senior Counsel at the high-profile corporate law firm Cleary Gottlieb. Gitter is a personal friend and former law partner of Lewis A. Kaplan, the controversial federal judge who presided over th…

Your article strips everything of context and attempts to make it seem like something nefarious is going on. But the article never suggests any sort of link between Gitter and Chevron, other than payment of fees the court ordered Chevron to pay. It's Glenn Beck level "connect the dots" rhetoric. Gitter was appointed as a special master for the trial, after having agreed to do a bunch of work, such as mediation, for f…

The biggest take is that Mr. Gitter was with Chevron long before the trial, he took money from them before appointment.

I read more about the case, and this is by far not the only party very close to the Chevron being embedded into the process. They pretty much enveloped the guy from all sides with their lawyers.

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#73
post #72
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your article strips everything of context and attempts to make it seem like something nefarious is going on. But the article never suggests any sort of link between Gitter and Chevron, other than payment of fees the court ordered Chevron to pay. It's Glenn Beck level "connect the dots" rhetoric. Gitter was appointed as a special master for the trial, after having agreed to do a bunch of work, such as mediation, for f…

The biggest take is that Mr. Gitter was with Chevron long before the trial, he took money from them before appointment. I read more about the case, and this is by far not the only party very close to the Chevron being embedded into the process. They pretty much enveloped the guy from all sides with their lawyers.

Where does the article say "Mr. Gitter was with Chevron long before the trial, he took money from them before appointment?" Given the highly misleading nature of the article you just linked, I would be very skeptical of trusting similar sources. There is a lot of "journalism" on this topic that takes tremendous liberties, relying on the fact that (1) most people don't understand how court proceedings or the law work; and (2) it's easy to hate Chevron.

For example, your article asserts that the RICO judgment against Donzinger has been "discredited." But a tribunal at the Hague, and also courts in Brazil, have found that the Ecuador judgment was procured by fraud. The article asserts that "Kaplan’s findings have been rejected in whole or in part in five different unanimous decisions by appellate courts in Canada and Ecuador, including the entire Supreme Courts of both countries." But when you actually look into it, the article seems to be relying on an early jurisdictional ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that allowed an enforcement action to go forward: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-plot-to-murde.... But the Canadian Supreme Court ultimately rejected enforcement of the Ecuadoran judgment in Canada: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2019/04/05/the-su....

The article you linked came out before the Canadian decision, so I can't fault it for not taking that into account. However, what's deeply misleading was suggesting that the 2015 Canadian decision "discredited" the U.S. RICO judgment. The Canadian courts did not grapple with whether the Ecuadorean judgment was procured by fraud. They were dealing with the very different issue of whether the judgment -- even if it was legitimate -- could be enforced against Chevron's Canadian entity, which is an entirely different company. It was misleading to suggest that the Canadian decision allowing the enforcement proceeding to go forward somehow "discredited" the U.S. RICO judgment.

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#74
This discussion is simply an illustration of a larger problem -- namely that none of us know anything.

We have documents alleging person X said Y, because of Z. Without any real first-hand knowledge, none of us actually know how reputable the justice system is in Ecuador, how plausible bribery is, or much at all. First hand, all we know is web-pages on the internet.

I think maybe it's best to take a step back from this specific case and ask "What policies could make bribery harder in general across the board?" Is there a way to build a system (e.g. justice-system, news-system) that results in less ambiguity?

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#75
post #61

This article is obscenely misleading. Skip the narrative, and go straight to the 500 page Southern District of New York opinion finding that Donzinger procured the Ecuador judgment through extortion and fraud: http://www.theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/Chevron-Ecua... > Upon consideration of all of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses – though several of the most important declined to testify…

The PDF you linked was written by Judge Kaplan, the one detailed in this article.

"Skip the narrative and go straight to".. the opinion of a single judge whom evidence suggests is biased in favor of Chevron.

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#76
Chevron messed up the environment for farmers, Donziger broke the law to make them pay for what they did, and Chevron moved assets and left.

The losers are the farmers who have to clean that mess up. A lot happened and we are back at the exact same problem.

Question: does any of what happened in Chevron vs Donziger really matter?

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#77
post #7

Wow this sounds crazy. He won a lawsuit in Ecuador, so the company got a judge in Manhattan New York to put him on house arrest? Isn't that overstepping their jurisdiction and abuse of power? Seems like a huge miscarriage of justice. Didn't even know this was possible unless there's something I'm missing here? Sounds like someone is acting out of bounds here.

No. Donziger won a lawsuit in Ecuador. There is some evidence that the win was the result, in part, of bribery and fraud, but that's a matter for the Ecuadorian courts, and they're apparently fine with it. So he's not in trouble for that.

However, he later started suing in various foreign courts for enforcement of that judgement, and lawsuits filed in the US are the business of US courts, and lawsuits to enforce judgements obtained via fraud, collusion, and bribery are tained. So if Donziger knew the judgement was obtained corruptly (and there's some very inconvenient footage of Donziger admitting as much to a documentary film crew...), then he's been a very naughty boy, and it's well within the right of a court to request he provide more information about what exactly he did. And the way courts enforce compliance with these requests is, yes, fines and imprisonment.

There's nothing all that weird about this. It's unfortunate because the people Donziger represented are very sympathetic, and have clearly been deeply wronged. Nonetheless, you're really not supposed lie and cheat to obtain justice for your clients.

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#78

This discussion is simply an illustration of a larger problem -- namely that none of us know anything. We have documents alleging person X said Y, because of Z. Without any real first-hand knowledge, none of us actually know how reputable the justice system is in Ecuador, how plausible bribery is, or much at all. First hand, all we know is web-pages on the internet. I think maybe it's best to take a step back from th…

> This discussion is simply an illustration of a larger problem -- namely that none of us know anything.

Not true. We do know stuff. On one side, you have a decision of the Ecuadorean courts upholding the judgment. On the other side, you have decisions from the U.S. and the Netherlands saying that the judgment was procured by fraud. And you have decisions from Canada, Argentina, and Brazil that do not get into the fraud, but nonetheless declining to enforce the judgment.

Who do you believe?

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#79
post #75
post #61

This article is obscenely misleading. Skip the narrative, and go straight to the 500 page Southern District of New York opinion finding that Donzinger procured the Ecuador judgment through extortion and fraud: http://www.theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/Chevron-Ecua... > Upon consideration of all of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses – though several of the most important declined to testify…

The PDF you linked was written by Judge Kaplan, the one detailed in this article. "Skip the narrative and go straight to".. the opinion of a single judge whom evidence suggests is biased in favor of Chevron.

> "Skip the narrative and go straight to".. the opinion of a single judge whom evidence suggests is biased in favor of Chevron.

There is zero evidence suggesting he is "biased in favor of Chevron." Donzinger's self-serving assertions are not evidence. Donzinger has repeatedly petitioned the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the appellate court that oversees the trial court here, to have the judge recused. The Second Circuit has repeatedly rejected those requests. And the Second Circuit, through a panel of three judges, affirmed the order I linked to: https://fcpablog.com/2016/08/11/second-circuit-upholds-rico-...

Re: Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything

#80
post #16

On the one hand, this sounds bad for Chevron. On the other hand, what is the probability that corruption happened in an Ecuadorian court vs a US court? It seems to me somewhat more likely that the Ecuadorian court was corrupt here, than that Chevron managed to influence a US judge to this degree. Of note, he could simply turn over his phone and this would end. There is no assertion here that he is protecting some wit…

If we are to believe the article, Chevron was on a vendetta against him, spending huge amounts of money to destroy him. Paying people to dig dirt. Surely you must see the immorality of this? I mean we are not asked to believe anything crazy here. A company made enormous environmental damage. Is that premise hard to believe? Next they refused to pay or invent excuses? Again nothing odd about that. Some lawyer takes up…

If they honestly believe the guy created a fraudulent scheme to steal billions of dollars from them, no, it doesn’t seem particularly immoral to spend millions making sure he gets in trouble for it.
Post reply on HN