
Environmental lawyer who won a judgment against Chevron lost everything - ductionist
https://theintercept.com/2020/01/29/chevron-ecuador-lawsuit-steven-donziger/
======
baybal2
From [https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/40738-U-S-Judge-
Kapla...](https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/40738-U-S-Judge-Kaplan-
Approved-Secret-Chevron-Payments-to-Court-Official-Who-Swayed-RICO-Case-for-
Company)

>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 the Chevron “racketeering” (or
RICO) case and who repeatedly has been accused of bias in favor of the oil
giant in its multiyear attempt to try to taint a $9.5 billion environmental
judgment against it handed down by Ecuadorian courts.

>Gitter and an associate were secretly billing Chevron a total of $1,330 per
hour for their work sitting in weeks of depositions leading up to the civil
RICO trial, which began in October 2013. That amount is more than many of the
indigenous peoples in Ecuador who won the judgment make in one year, said
Patricio Salazar, the Ecuadorian lawyer for the Front for the Defense of the
Amazon (FDA), the group that represents the affected communities.

I think it's 100% clear cut what's going on here

~~~
rayiner
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 free. Appointment of a paid special
master is a common practice in the Anglo legal system for cases where the
Court needs a neutral third party to manage day-to-day issues in a complex
matter. The special master is therefore often a lawyer that the judge trusts.
(Maybe the practice of appointing special masters could be made more
meritocratic, but nothing suggests either the special master or the judge had
any prior connection to Chevron.) The special masters fees are paid by the
parties.[1] Indeed, contrary to the article's spin, ordering only one side to
pay the special master's fees is usually _punishment_ to that party for having
done something wrong.[1a] So of course Chevron paid Gitter. That is standard
practice. The plaintiffs were also supposed to pay Gitter. But they refused.

The whole thing about the plaintiffs being impoverished farmers who couldn’t
afford the special master’s fees is again out of context. The plaintiffs had
millions of dollars in funding from multiple investors for the payment of
litigation costs.[2]

The point about not paying Gitter’s law firm to make it seem like there was
something improper is again specious. Gitter is a retired partner at his firm,
which means he has an association but is not a partner or employee. The
special master engagement was his personal engagement, not the firm’s. The
firm provided a separate bill for the associate who assisted Gitter. (It is a
typical courtesy for firms to loan out associates to assist retired partners
with their individual engagements.)[3]

Finally, the Second Circuit's opinion upholding the fee award makes clear that
while Gitter initially left off descriptions of how he spent the billed time,
the court ordered him to provide those descriptions and he did so:
[https://casetext.com/case/chevron-corp-v-
donziger-29](https://casetext.com/case/chevron-corp-v-donziger-29)

> Chevron's bill of costs contained copies of the bills it had paid for the
> compensation and expenses of the special masters and their assistant. In the
> case of one of the two special masters, former Magistrate Judge Katz, the
> material included detailed, contemporaneous time records. In the case of the
> other, Max Gitter, Esq., it included invoices showing the hours worked and
> the billing rates but not time detail. Accordingly, by order dated November
> 9, 2017, the Court (1) required that Mr. Gitter and Cleary, Gottlieb provide
> Donziger and the Court with "time records (including any description of
> services the existing records contain) sufficient to show the services
> rendered that were . . . included in the bill of costs taxed by the Clerk,"
> and (2) requested that the special masters make a recommendation with
> respect to the allocation of the special master costs as between the
> defendants and Chevron. Donziger then was given until December 4, 2017 to
> object to the reasonableness of the hours devoted to the services performed
> by any or all of the special masters or their assistant and until December
> 23, 2017 to object to the special masters recommendation.

[1]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_53](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_53)
("Payment of the master's fees must be allocated among the parties and any
property or subject-matter within the court's control.").

[1a] From above. "A party whose unreasonable behavior has occasioned the need
to appoint a master, on the other hand, may properly be charged all or a major
portion of the master's fees."

[2] Opinion linked above. "Perhaps more fundamentally, Donziger's focus on his
supposed personal circumstances should not blind one to the fact that the
litigation with Chevron, including this case, has been financed by third-party
funders."

[3] Opinion linked above, footnotes 121-122.

~~~
baybal2
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.

~~~
rayiner
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...](https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-plot-to-murder-
canadas-resource-sector-is-one-script-hollywood-wont-touch). 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...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2019/04/05/the-supreme-
court-of-canada-dismisses-donzigers-ecuador-petition-to-appeal/#32e00b9d6964).

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.

------
oefrha
> Even though the ruling was subsequently upheld by the Ecuadorian Supreme
> Court, Chevron immediately made clear that it would not be paying the
> judgment. Instead, Chevron moved its assets out of the country, making it
> impossible for the Ecuadorians to collect.

WTF? A nation state couldn’t have seized the assets? It seems that
multinational megacorps are truly more powerful than and above the law in
small countries these days.

~~~
mapcars
>megacorps are truly more powerful than and above the law in small countries
these days.

Why in small countries? They do what they want in America too.

~~~
pjc50
Only if they're _American_ megacorps. BP paid $20bn in fines for Deepwater
Horizon.

------
PakG1
[https://www.chevron.com/corporate-
responsibility](https://www.chevron.com/corporate-responsibility)

Is it any wonder that I'm extremely jaded with any corporation's public speech
about how they care or how they're a responsible citizen? At the end of the
day, corporate incentives are driven by shareholders and most shareholders are
short-term driven, and only cry out after disasters happen, never before.

Most corporations these days feel no different from tobacco companies talking
about caring about consumer health.

~~~
mushufasa
one solution is to use your rights as a shareholder to hold companies
accountable to your long term interest.

vote your proxies.

or support year-round initiatives such as
[https://www.yourstake.org/petition/disclose-corporate-
politi...](https://www.yourstake.org/petition/disclose-corporate-political-
activity/)

~~~
Joe-Z
So you're proposing the Ecuadorian government should've given a whole lot of
money to Chevron to be able to have a say in the matter?

At this point I would be fine with them sending in their army and raiding the
place. If some of the higher-ups get collateral-damaged during the raid that
wouldn't be a huge loss to the world.

~~~
ryanlol
> So you're proposing the Ecuadorian government should've given a whole lot of
> money to Chevron to be able to have a say in the matter?

Why would buying Chevron shares necessitate giving Chevron money?

~~~
Joe-Z
Because that's literally what buying shares is?[0]: Giving money to the
corporation so they can finance future endeavours. Yes, you may not buy shares
from them directly but from some other gambler. Still, to be able to sell you
shares they need to have given it to Chevron first.

[0] Please correct me if I'm unknowingly bullshitting here!

~~~
7532yahoogmail
You'd be giving money to the company if the shares actually came from them. If
you're buying on an exchange ... you're exchanging cash for shares with the
counterparty almost never ever the company itself. The company is not acting
as a market maker on its own stock, for example. The only way the company
would benefit is if the purchase increased the ask price so that at the end of
the day the price per share was higher.

------
Keverw
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.

~~~
onetimemanytime
Charges were for violating US law. Chevron claimed that he paid off Equatorian
judges, manufactured evidence etc.

>> _The decision hinged on the testimony of an Ecuadorian judge named Alberto
Guerra, who claimed that Donziger had bribed him during the original trial and
that the decision against Chevron had been ghostwritten._

A lot of stuff happens in such places, but when you take on Chevron size
companies, you better be squeaky clean. Hundreds of lawyers and PIs will find
everything. Chevron can't bribe, but local lawyers and PIs no doubt can.

~~~
socialdemocrat
Say the judge Alberto Guerra, was paid by Chevron or intermediates to say
this, how would you prove that? Is the testimony of a judge all it takes?

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Chevron proved bribery in the original case through the testimony of a judge,
circumstantial evidence showing opportunities to bribe the judge, and
substantial discussions by Donzinger's associates about how they wanted to pay
a bribe and how easy it would be to do so. If a similar array of evidence were
deployed to show Chevron bribing someone, I think most people would be
convinced.

------
Lazare
Interesting that there's no mention of the documentary "Crude" at all. For
those unfamiliar, it was a (very pro-Donziger ) documentary that seemed to
suggest Donziger was crossing some ethical boundaries. Chevron sued to obtain
outtakes and unused footage, and the result was extremely damning for Donziger
. He's on tape, talking to a documentary crew, admitting to much of what he
was later accused of:
[http://opiniojuris.org/2010/08/04/chevron%E2%80%99s-explosiv...](http://opiniojuris.org/2010/08/04/chevron%E2%80%99s-explosive-
filing-on-collusion-between-plaintiffs-and-ecuadorian-court-appointed-expert/)

------
Thorrez
One thing I'm confused about is why he's charged with criminal contempt.

> To Donziger, who had already endured 19 days of depositions and given
> Chevron large portions of his case file, the request was beyond the pale,
> and he appealed it on the grounds that it would require him to violate his
> commitments to his clients. Still, Donziger said he’d turn over the devices
> if he lost the appeal.

He said he would obey the order if he lost the appeal. But the article doesn't
say what happened to the appeal, is it ongoing, is it over, who won?

~~~
slavik81
He lost the appeal. From Wikipedia:

> In March 2014, a United States district court judge ruled that the
> Ecuadorian plaintiff's lead US attorney, Steven Donziger, had used "corrupt
> means," including payment of almost US$300,000 in bribes, to obtain the 2011
> court verdict in Ecuador. The judge did not rule on the underlying issue of
> environmental damages. While the US ruling does not affect the decision of
> the court in Ecuador, it has blocked efforts to collect damages from Chevron
> in US courts.[55][56] Donziger and the two Ecuadorian defendants appealed,
> and on August 8, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
> Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment against them in all respects.

When he turned over the documents, it revealed "that the 2009 environmental
report signed by a court-appointed expert had largely been written by an
environmental consultancy company hired by the plaintiffs."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lago_Agrio_oil_field)

~~~
shkkmo
I believe you are conflating appeals. The criminal contempt of court is from
August 2019, the appeal you cite is from 2016. That wiki article seems to have
major quality and sourcing concerns and is not something that I would trust.

~~~
slavik81
Whoops. You're right. That was about the first time he was required to turn
over his computer and the contempt charge is about the second.

Wikipedia is not a great primary source (especially on subjects like this),
but that bit comes from this New Yorker article, which seems trustworthy to
me: [https://newyorker.com/magazine/2012/01/09/reversal-of-
fortun...](https://newyorker.com/magazine/2012/01/09/reversal-of-fortune-
patrick-radden-keefe)

------
rayiner
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...](http://www.theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/Chevron-Ecuador-
Opinion-3.4.14.pdf)

> Upon consideration of all of the evidence, including the credibility of the
> witnesses – though several of the most important declined to testify – the
> Court finds that Donziger began his involvement in this controversy with a
> desire to improve conditions in the area in which his Ecuadorian clients
> live. To be sure, he sought also to do well for himself while doing good for
> others, but there was nothing wrong with that. In the end, however, he and
> the Ecuadorian lawyers he led corrupted the Lago Agrio case. They submitted
> fraudulent evidence. They coerced one judge, first to use a court-appointed,
> supposedly impartial, “global expert” to make an overall damages assessment
> and, then, to appoint to that important role a man whom Donziger hand-picked
> and paid to “totally play ball” with the LAPs. They then paid a Colorado
> consulting firm secretly to write all or most of the global expert’s report,
> falsely presented the report as the work of the court-appointed and
> supposedly impartial expert, and told half-truths or worse to U.S. courts in
> attempts to prevent exposure of that and other wrongdoing. Ultimately, the
> LAP team wrote the Lago Agrio court’s Judgment themselves and promised
> $500,000 to the Ecuadorian judge to rule in their favor and sign their
> judgment. If ever there were a case warranting equitable relief with respect
> to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it.

Subsequently, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague found that the
Chevron judgment was procured by fraud and should not be enforced:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2019/04/14/dutch-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2019/04/14/dutch-
high-court-finds-for-chevron-over-ecuador/#68208c1b6723)

> And last week, on April 12, 2019, the Dutch Supreme Court upheld the Court
> of Appeal’s decision. Last week's decision means that the five arbitral
> awards are no longer subject to challenge. This includes the BIT Tribunal's
> interim awards ordering Ecuador to “take all measures necessary” to prevent
> or suspend enforcement of the Lago Agrio Judgment worldwide and declaring
> Ecuador in breach of international law for having failed to voluntarily do
> so.

~~~
tptacek
Wow, this is a hell of a find.

~~~
e12e
Right, it's linked from the intercept article:

> Chevron has hired private investigators to track Donziger, created a
> publication[1] to smear him, and put together a legal team of hundreds of
> lawyers from 60 firms, who have successfully pursued an extraordinary
> campaign against him.

[1] this is a link to the Amazonpost.com.

So,is it really set up and run by Chevron for the purpose of discrediting?

~~~
tptacek
It's a link to the court documents, not to whatever this site is.

~~~
e12e
It's a link to the court documents, hosted at that site.

www.theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/Chevron-Ecuador-Opinion-3.4.14.pdf

I'm not saying the documents aren't legit (I don't know). But it's clearly a
link to that site.

------
roca
I don't know who's right here, but it is suspicious that The Intercept's
article doesn't even mention the judgement for Chevron from the The Hague's
arbitration panel.
[https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/stories/documents/in...](https://www.chevron.com/-/media/chevron/stories/documents/international-
tribunal-rules-for-chevron-in-ecuador-case.pdf)

~~~
ptah
those treaties are despicable.

to receive US aid you have to essentially give carte blanche to US
corporations to raid and rape your country and its people as they please.

EDIT: essentially the hague court is enforcing the heinous practice of forcing
the prioritization of corporate profits over country's sovereignty, and the
wellbeing of its citizenry and envrionment

~~~
darawk
It seems like you are confusing some things. The Hague is enforcing
international law - which is its purpose. The treaties were entered into by
fully competent governments. These aren't uneducated minors being pressured
into a deal they don't understand. They're national governments.

~~~
ptah
> pressured into a deal they don't understand

you would be surprised as to how many people would assume that they would
still be able to hold a corporation to account if they completely make a
country unlivable and kill citizens. these treaties are morally wrong and make
it legal for corporations to destroy the habitibility of a piece of land and
kill its inhabitants if it is profitable to them

~~~
darawk
> you would be surprised as to how many people would assume that they would
> still be able to hold a corporation to account if they completely make a
> country unlivable and kill citizens. these treaties are morally wrong and
> make it legal for corporations to destroy the habitibility of a piece of
> land and kill its inhabitants if it is profitable to them

I'm not aware of any provisions in these treaties that permit killing.

~~~
ptah
governments are not allowed to do anything that lowers corporate profits under
these treaties. in this specific case the pollution was deadly and yet the
treaty protects chevron's interest over those of the citizens and endangers
lives

~~~
PeterisP
Well, the national government representing these citizens intentionally chose
that attracting investment (which presumably helps their citizens in the long
run) is more important to their country than protecting the health of their
population, and as the sovereign, they can make that choice on behalf of their
citizens. It may be a stupid or misguided or evil choice, but that's their
choice to make.

Also, for many third world countries it _does_ seem quite clear that simply
setting the labor law and environmental law protections equal to first world
standards would be a stupid policy harmful to their citizens; simple poverty
kills and harms much more people in a much more direct way, and becoming a
place for outsourcing is a net benefit to their population in the end; proper
protection is a luxury that their society can't (yet) afford because they have
to fulfil their core needs first even if that costs some lives due to
pollution or exploitative labor. At some point they'll want to toughen up
these restrictions (as China is doing now), but it's not because the lax
restrictions were wrong or a regrettable mistake, it's only because the
conditions have changed, they're richer, and _now_ they can afford to be more
picky about these issues. It's a tough choice to make this balance well, but
it's not something that someone else can decide for them, the national
governments are the ones that should be making this choice - unless they're
totalitarian dictatorships, in which case the people should be given the say,
but they won't without a potentially bloody coup.

~~~
ptah
these treaties are boilerplate take it or leave it. third world countries
mostly don't have the option to vary these terms

~~~
PeterisP
But they are free to refuse that treaty if they feel that it does not (in
aggregate) benefit their nation.

------
bronzeage
So a US judge, which seems extremely likely to be taking bribes himself,
convicted a lawyer in bribing a judge according to a single bribed witness. So
ironic...

This judge needs to be thoroughly investigated on his connections to Chevron.

------
jojo2000
It's a tragedy. Those unsung heroes need some help as they are our moral
compass, and guardians of our future.

------
alexandercrohde
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?

~~~
rayiner
> 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?

~~~
alexandercrohde
That's my point. I know nothing.

All I know is what intermediaries (whom I've never met) say. The Ecuadorian
judge says the American judge is lying, the American judge says the Ecuadorian
judge is lying. I personally haven't looked at any evidence. And if I did, how
could I personally know if it's valid?

You're caught-up and emotional in this one tiny thread which is insignificant.
We should be talking about the larger problem.

------
hitekker
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation#Environm...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_Corporation#Environmental_damage_in_Ecuador)

For context on this decision. Some people worship corporations, and we should
remember that those people value paper dollars over human lives.

------
bookofjoe
"I was never ruined but twice in my life: once, when I lost a lawsuit, and
once when I won one."—Voltaire

------
adrianN
We somehow need to fix the judicial system so that companies with limitless
money can't endlessly bully people.

~~~
zentiggr
How do you make money worthless enough that it loses potency as a bribe?

More transparency called for here... let's have the judge's financials and
phone records investigated by a special counsel.

------
HoustonRefugee
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?

------
NotAnAccountNO
Very scary. I can only assume that Ecuadorians will pursue this further.

~~~
mapcars
Why Ecuadorians? This is American company destroying other countries.

~~~
xbmcuser
Stuff like this is the reason when the west cries about China silk road
initiative most of the countries don't care as Western countries have been
exploiting their resources for years what difference does it make if China
does it.

~~~
jacobush
Well, if China can exploit one more person, it makes a difference to that
person.

------
refurb
I know plenty of people will dismiss it as a right wing publication, but the
case against Chevron get weirder and weirder the deeper to you. Both sides are
up to some some shady shit[1]

 _After a lengthy exploration of bribery, money laundering, and other
corruption, Judge Kaplan concludes: “The decision in the Lago Agrio case was
obtained by corrupt means. The defendants here may not be allowed to benefit
from that in any way. The order entered today will prevent them from doing
so.”_

[1] [https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/chevron-case-
shakedow...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/chevron-case-shakedown-
ecuador-roger-waters/)

------
naringas
the law as a system of rule to organize society is failing (another example is
those kids prosecuted for child porn because they took pictures of themselves
before being over the age of consent).

money rules society, and legality works for money; at the sime time, money as
a system is encoded and enforced by the legal system.

we have built a civilization/socity which has trapped us. the matrix is not
made out of computers but of corporate institutions. by this point most
corporations of this magnitude are pretty much autonomous, neither their
shareholders nor the justice systems can reign them in.

~~~
naringas
all these kind of weird comments I make as an attempt of being critical ofthen
get downvoted. I don't understand why but the outcome is I make less of them
and think twice before posting (I probably shouldn't post this, but meh, this
is public self-introspection).

My take away is that I should somehow make them better but I don't understand
why some get downvotes.

maybe I make big and unjustified logical jumps? maybe I'm to paranoid? in any
case I think way too much...

some examples:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21851332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21851332)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21536936](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21536936)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20175491](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20175491)
(this is a taboo topic, always thread carefuly near those)

and one in which I did 'it' correctly, but it took like 20 minutes to write:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20991015](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20991015)

another "good" one
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18603793](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18603793)

------
darawk
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 witness from harm. The fact that he
is unwilling to do that should give us some pause.

~~~
socialdemocrat
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 the case and wins. Again nothing out of the ordinary. The
company fights him tooth and nail. Nothing weird thus far.

What is novel is really just the extent to which they have gone to smear him
and destroy him. That they are motivated to do this is not strange at all.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
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.

