dagblog - Comments for "In the failed corporate coverage of Steven Donziger and Julian Assange there is an imposition of darkness"

Which is bigger, Lulu, half a

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 23 Oct 2021 14:25:22 +0000

Which is bigger, Lulu, half a mill or $2 billion?
Must've been tough lobbying on behalf of ol' M Bonesaw S for such chump change.
I'm sure Jared earned every penny.
#NightOfTheHunter

Uh, okay, they're both big

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 22 Oct 2021 18:21:17 +0000

In reply to Change Chevron to Boeing and

Uh, okay, they're both big corporations. If Boeing did something wrong, does Chevron twitch? Is this "Guilt by some similarities"?

So Hunter made half to 1

PeraclesPlease — Fri, 22 Oct 2021 17:54:00 +0000

In reply to PS: While I think that my

So Hunter made half to 1 million dollars a year, while Javanka piled up $170 million "working for the administration" (and running around sticking their noses in failed initiatives while Donald tried appointing her to the World Bank) and Eric kept running Trump Inc after they were supposed to divest, amassing $75 million or so.
Are the 2 families comparable? I mean, Hunter's an addict & does cringeworthy clingy stuff, but deos that make him the same league as the Trump corruption?

Change Chevron to Boeing and

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 22 Oct 2021 16:14:36 +0000

In reply to Change "Donziger" to "Trump"

Change Chevron to Boeing and consider the case.

PS: While I think that my

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 20 Oct 2021 16:59:50 +0000

In reply to Change "Donziger" to "Trump"

PS: While I think that my point was made despite my mistake, I intended to say Change Eric to Hunter.

Change "Donziger" to "Trump"

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 20 Oct 2021 15:28:20 +0000

In reply to Change "Donziger" to "Trump"

Change "Donziger" to "Trump" & consider the case.That can be a fair game or, like in any game the rules can be followed selectively. Let me try changing "Hunter" to "Eric" for instance and consider where your blood pressure would spike to. And not really caring when the government treats individuals or even entire countries unfairly says something significant that should be paid attention to about both that government and the individuals who really don't mind.

Change "Donziger" to "Trump"

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 20 Oct 2021 04:41:00 +0000

In reply to Did Donziger bribe a judge? I

Change "Donziger" to "Trump" & consider the case. They seem to have found evidence in plain sight of Donziger coordinating with the government with payoffs to game a suit against Chevron, obviously not the most sympathetic of targets. And then for years Donziger refuses to hand over devices the judge demands that would further support or refute those charges. Trump has similarly thwarted discovery time and again and it pisses me off. If Trump was confined to home for 2 years for playing this game, i really wouldn't mind, unfair or not. Better than what Susan McDougal got.

Did Donziger bribe a judge? I

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 20 Oct 2021 03:45:16 +0000

In reply to Did Donziger bribe a judge?

Did Donziger bribe a judge? I don't know, do you? I don't think so. I do know that oil companies and other international corporations have been charged and convicted countless times and have paid billions in fines for bribery of officials and executives in foreign countries. Google "oil company international bribery" and skim, or actually read, a few of the 18 million 800 thousand hits if you need more evidence. Because they keep doing it I take it as circumstantial evidence that those companies' cost-benefit calculations say that it is a profitable way for them to do business. Not so much for anybody that gets in their way. That and the fact that it is extremely rare for the guilty parties within the corporations ever to get convicted of a criminal offense and even more rarely does anyone go to jail upon the rare conviction, I would bet that it is at least as likely that Chevron did some bribing or otherwise played dirty in their lawfare to minimize the cost of cleaning up their oil drilling environmental damage.

Diving into whether Donziger's detention is outrageous doesn't help us understand how crooked was the original Ecuador ruling, and how valid was the evidence of judicial malfeasance?

I agree with the first part of that statement about that other case but do you really believe that there is not evidence of judicial malfeasance by the judge in the case at hand revolving around a misdemeanor charge which appears to be weak in its own account but has resulted in more than two years confinement already. Donziger waits for his appeal to take place and works to get his appeal case before a judge that has not already shown him or herself to be extremely biased and conflicted. Do you think, based on what information we have available to base our opinion on, that Donziger has legitimate grounds for appeal and do you think that he should serve the assigned jail term before that appeal gets heard. I don't.

Did Donziger bribe a judge?

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 19 Oct 2021 19:28:00 +0000

In reply to Donziger on Donziger and

Did Donziger bribe a judge? Did the Ecuador government work with Donziger against Chevron? The Hague seems to back this version based on evidence. Diving into whether Donziger's detention is outrageous doesn't help us understand how crooked was the original Ecuador ruling, and how valid was the evidence of judicial malfeasance? I thought the Stanford prof's/hired gun's account pretty strong.

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/boutrous.pdf

22. See, e.g., In re Chevron Corp., 633 F.3d 153, 166 (3d Cir. Feb. 3, 2011) (“Though
we recognize that the Lago Agrio Court may view what seems to us to be a conflict of
interest differently than we do, we believe that this showing of [plaintiffs’ technical
consultant] Villao’s dual employment is sufficient to make a prima facie showing of a fraud
that satisfies the first element of the showing necessary to apply the crime-fraud exception to
the attorney-client privilege.”); In re Chevron Corp., No. 11-24599-CV, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 123315, at *7 (S.D. Fla. June 12, 2012) (“Chevron has obtained mounds of evidence,
in multiple § 1782 proceedings, that suggests that the judgment itself was also ghostwritten.
For example a forensic document analysis conducted on the judgment revealed that it
contains verbatim passages that were taken from various pieces of the LAP lawyers’ internal,
unfiled work product . . . .”); Chevron Corp. v. Donziger, 768 F. Supp. 2d 581, 636
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 2011) (“There is ample evidence of fraud in the Ecuadorian proceedings.
The LAPs, through their counsel, submitted forged expert reports in the name of [technical
expert] Dr. [Charles] Calmbacher. Their counsel orchestrated a scheme in which [plaintiffs’
technical consulting firm] Stratus ghost-wrote much or all of [court expert] Cabrera’s
supposedly independent damages assessment without, as far as the record discloses,
notifying the Ecuadorian court of its involvement . . . . When it became evident that the
LAPs’ improper contacts with Cabrera, including the pre-appointment meetings, ghost-
writing, and illicit payments, would be revealed through the Section 1782 proceedings, LAP
representatives undertook a scheme to “cleanse” the Cabrera report. They hired new
consultants who, without visiting Ecuador or conducting new site inspections and relying
heavily on the initial Cabrera report, submitted opinions that increased the damages
assessment from $27 billion to $113 billion.”); In re Chevron Corp., No. 10-cv-1146-IEG
(WMC), 2010 WL 3584520, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2010) (“There is ample evidence in
the record that the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs secretly provided information to Mr. Cabrera, who was supposedly a neutral court-appointed expert, and colluded with Mr. Cabrera to make it
look like the opinions were his own. Thus, any privilege which existed was waived;
Respondents’ claim of privilege neither bars production of the subpoenaed documents nor
gives [plaintiffs’ technical consultant] Powers a basis for refusing to testify.”); In re Chevron
Corp., Nos. 1:10-mc-00021-22 (JH/LFG), slip op. at 3-4 (D.N.M. Sept. 2, 2010) (“The
release of many hours of the [Crude] outtakes has sent shockwaves through the nation’s
legal communities, primarily because the footage shows, with unflattering frankness,
inappropriate, unethical and perhaps illegal conduct.”); Chevron Corp. v. Champ, Nos. 1:10-
mc-27, 1:10-mc-28, 2010 WL 3418394, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2010) (“While this court
is unfamiliar with the practices of the Ecuadorian judicial system, the court must believe that
the concept of fraud is universal, and that what has blatantly occurred in this matter would in
fact be considered fraud by any court. If such conduct does not amount to fraud in a
particular country, then that country has larger problems than an oil spill.”); In re Chevron
Corp., No. cv-10-2675 (SRC) (D.N.J. June 11, 2010) (“As far as the Court is concerned, the
concept of an employee of a party covertly functioning as a consultant to a court appointed
expert in the same proceeding can only be viewed as a fraud upon that tribunal . . . .”);
Hearing Transcript at 55, 58, Chevron Corp. v. Page, No. RWT-11-1942 (D. Md. Jan. 25,
2013) (finding evidence to support a crime-fraud ruling based on “substantial extrinsic
evidence of wrongdoing,” “ample evidence of the existence of a fraudulent scheme” and the
fact that “Chevron has shown to anyone with common sense that [the Ecuadorian judgment]
is a blatant cut and paste exercise”).

If they did work together behind the scenes for a sham verdict, that rather changes a lot.

Donziger on Donziger and

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:18:02 +0000

In reply to In the failed corporate coverage of Steven Donziger and Julian Assange there is an imposition of darkness

Donziger on Donziger and where his case stands as of today.