14 votes

How corporate tyranny works - Chevron poisoned the Amazon, and then punished environmental lawyer Steven Donziger when he tried to get justice

2 comments

  1. [2]
    pseudochron
    Link
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger In the 1970's Texaco (now owned by Chevron) started dumping heavy metals and toxins into the drinking water in Ecuador. In 1993, Steven Donziger...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Donziger

    In the 1970's Texaco (now owned by Chevron) started dumping heavy metals and toxins into the drinking water in Ecuador. In 1993, Steven Donziger brought a class-action lawsuit against them on behalf of the farmers and Indigenous people. After losing that case, Chevron bribed a former Ecuadorean judge to present false testimony in US courts, and now Donziger is under house arrest. Chevron has pressured media outlets to drop stories about the Chevron and Donziger litigation.

    Here's a more recent article, he just won an appeal: http://redgreenandblue.org/2021/03/05/steven-donziger-beat-chevron-court-crucified-just-won-appeal/

    2 votes
    1. skybrian
      Link Parent
      Here is the decision. From the summary, it doesn't sound like he actually won? Here's another news story about the result of the appeal that gives a bit of background: Lawyer and Chevron critic...

      Here is the decision. From the summary, it doesn't sound like he actually won?

      Defendant-Appellant Steven Donziger appeals from an amended judgment
      of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Kaplan,
      J.) awarding costs to Plaintiff-Appellee Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”)
      pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d), several interlocutory orders
      declining to dismiss civil contempt proceedings against him and ordering
      compliance with post-judgment discovery, and a judgment and order finding
      him in civil contempt. We conclude that the district court did not err in awarding
      costs to Chevron. However, we also conclude that the district court was not clear
      and unambiguous in prohibiting Donziger from fundraising by selling interests
      in a fraudulently procured judgment.
      We therefore AFFIRM the district court’s amended judgment awarding
      costs to Chevron. We also AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the district
      court’s contempt finding and VACATE the supplemental judgment awarding
      Chevron $666,476.34 in compensatory sanctions. Lastly, we VACATE the
      supplemental judgment awarding attorneys’ fees and REMAND to the district
      court to determine the fees reasonably expended to secure the contempt findings
      affirmed on appeal.

      Here's another news story about the result of the appeal that gives a bit of background:

      Lawyer and Chevron critic Donziger's civil contempt finding mostly upheld; fees and sanctions vacated.

      The case stemmed from a $9.5 billion judgment that Donziger won in 2011 against Chevron in an Ecuadorian court, but which the San Ramon, California-based oil company claimed had been procured by fraud.
      Donziger represented villagers in Ecuador's Lago Agrio region who sued over decades of water and soil contamination by Texaco, which Chevron later acquired.
      Chevron countered that Texaco cleaned up the area, and Petroecuador was mainly responsible for the contamination.
      In March 2014, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan in Manhattan sided with Chevron.
      He issued an injunction barring Donziger from profiting from the judgment or trying to enforce it in the United States, though Donziger could try — and has tried, unsuccessfully — to enforce it elsewhere.
      The appeals court upheld Kaplan's findings in 2016.
      Three years later, Kaplan found Donziger in contempt of the injunction for having, among other activities, raised more than $1.2 million by selling interests in the Ecuadorian judgment to six investors.

      This is the first I've read (well, skimmed) about this case. I'm wondering what argument convinced Kaplan that the decision made by the Ecuadorian court was based on fraud, but I'm not going to look into it further. Maybe someone else could look?

      3 votes