Skip to main content

View Diary: Chevron Granted Access to Nine Years of Activists' Email Information in Environmental Lawsuit (166 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Posted upthread. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mikidee, Mindful Nature

    In addition:

    The author of Crude had to turn over the incriminating outtakes, which are now part of the public record.

    Some of them are presented in video form here.

    If we learn one thing from all this, never actually admit on film that all your evidence is "smoke and mirrors and bullshit.  We have enough to get money, to win."

    •  What is incriminating about the outtakes? (6+ / 0-)

      Who cares if he thinks his evidence is bullshit? While what the lawyers here may have done is unethical, I don't know if it reaches to the level of fraud.  

      Basically the Chevron attorneys are suing because they feel the plaintiffs successfully manipulated a foreign court.  That doesn't seem like something a US court should have jurisdiction over.

      •  Long Arm Statute (0+ / 0-)

        If there is a prima facie case and the defendants engaged in some sort of activity that touches the United States or a company domiciled in the United States, there will probably be jurisdiction.

        I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

        by ccyd on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 11:22:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm not arguing the court doesn't have (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          jurisdiction to settle some of the disputes, but many of the complaints in the suit aren't obviously illegal.  Lot of what they are accused of doing is whipping up activist anger, manipulating the Ecuadorian government, and acting as if they are benefiting the people when they really are trying to enrich themselves.  What exactly is illegal about that?  If the plaintiffs lawyers unduly influenced the Ecuadorian gov't and courts, I don't understand how that constitutes fraud in the United States and the basis for a RICO action.  

          To believe that the plaintiffs are guilty of a RICO violation, you have to believe that there was no underlying environmental disaster they were trying to address.  But the Chevron suit makes clear there was an underlying environmental disaster, it just not clear how much is due to Chevron actions and how much is due to the actions of the Ecuador petroleum company. Chevron seems to be arguing that the lawyers cared more about themselves and becoming rich than about actually serving the population they came to serve.  My answer is - so what.  That is something for the bar association to worry about, not a federal court.  

          If the plaintiff lawyers used activists and protests to influence the Ecuadorian court, what basis is that to bring a civil suit in the US?  If the plaintiffs made a deal with the Ecuador government to hold Chevron chiefly responsible and not seek redress from the government, what is the harm of that?  This seems more like a question of plaintiff lawyers violating several rules of civil procedure - except the US rules of civil procedure don't apply in Ecuador.  I don't fully understand the basis for the claim for which they are seeking relief.  

          •  I haven't read the Complaint (0+ / 0-)

            Have you read it?  I think that would probably clarify the nature and basis of the claims.  If there is a RICO count, then the thing is probably 50+ pages, and that is definitely not worth my time so I can make a few comments on it.

            I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use -- Galileo Galilei

            by ccyd on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 01:12:20 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  ....really? (0+ / 0-)
        What is incriminating about the outtakes?
        It has them on camera admitting they're actually writing the supposed third-party report for the "expert" who they rigged getting on the trial in the first place.

        Also, planning to (and going to) intimidate a judge in an out-of-courtroom meeting...

    •  So? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      There's a difference between discussing fraud and actually committing it.

      Those videos only show the latter.

      "What could BPossibly go wrong??" -RLMiller "God is just pretend." - eru

      by nosleep4u on Thu Jul 11, 2013 at 12:31:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site