The judge who received $12k/month from chevron and retracted his accusation against Donziger? That judge?
The Judge who received $12k/month from Chevron andâŚlevied a $9.5b judgement againstâŚChevron?
But, regardless of what D is guilty of or not, the ire against him and his âattention seekingâ and lack of it towards the oil companies and the state and the outrageous prosecution is absolutely from a disgusting authoritarian place. Itâs infuriating.
1 Like
If thereâs one element of society that this forum doesnât criticize enough, itâs oil companies. Infuriating.
Iâm not sure. Might be more than one judge involved. But Chevron paid this judge later when they were having the judgement undone. After that he said the allegations of bribery were false.
Who is talking about âthis forumâ? I was taking about you.
Youâre not sure and yet.
I will confess to directing ire at a convicted fraud. Especially the self-aggrandizing ilk, like Avenatti and Donziger and Blago.
I would ramp up my ire at oil companies, but seems like that is well-covered.
Thatâs a stupid point. Thereâs lots of stuff neither of us know about the case. Whether or not there was more than one judge involved is not material.
His conviction was for contempt.
The one thing we know is that the permanent court of arbitration (which there is no evidence was bribed) affirmed a determination that the plaintiffs bribed a judge. No such finding was made by the court as to Chevron.
Looks like you are intent on defending Chevron.
How do you feel about the process of the contempt case? The public prosecutors waving off the case, the private prosecutors, the hand picked judge, the refusal of jury, the 3 years arrested for an offense that carries a max of 6 months?
Itâs all disgusting fascism. And if your ire here is not at that youâre a fascist.
If you think thereâs any way Chevron deserves better treatment in Ecuador youâre an ignoramus with no moral sense or understanding of history and how power and politics works in the world.
3 Likes
I guess this dispute falls on pretty typical lines, basically the core premise of the LOL Law thread: whether there are core values that should apply to everyone or if breaking norms is fine if youâre fighting the bad guys. Me being a liberal, I prefer the former, but the latter has value.
I swear I wrote that before seeing this paragraph:
Do you really think Chevron is bound by some Enlightenment kind of rule of law in Ecuador?
And Iâm not a breaking the rule of law person.
The norm breakers in this story are the ones who appointed private prosecutors. That they got away with it, that it wasnât actually illegal is because of fascism.
That whole Enlightenment thing does not boil down to âobeyâ.
I donât have the foggiest idea what the Ecuador legal system is like. Ecuador isnât an oil producing country so I donât know why Chevron would own them any more than the US legal system where corporations lose cases all the time.
Of course theyâre an oil producing country.
Crude oil and related products accounts for 58 percent of Ecuadorâs exports.
1 Like
wat
EDIT: I am a pony producing country