STEVEN DONZIGER DESCRIBES CONTEMPT CASE AS A “CHARADE” AS TRIAL COMES TO A CLOSE

https://theintercept.com/2021/05/17/chevron-steven-donziger-trial/

I’ve been following this poor guy’s case for a few years. He’s being railroaded by a private prosecutor and a hand-selected judge for the crime of winning a class action lawsuit against Chevron.

44 thoughts on “STEVEN DONZIGER DESCRIBES CONTEMPT CASE AS A “CHARADE” AS TRIAL COMES TO A CLOSE

    1. He turned over all his case files; they wanted his computers and phone too, which he claimed contained privileged info on his clients. The court said he had to turn them over, he appealed. He has been under house arrest for over two years without having his appeal heard.

      Also:

      In another legal peculiarity, in July, Kaplan appointed a private law firm to prosecute Donziger, after the Southern District of New York declined to do so — a move that is virtually unprecedented. And, as Donziger’s lawyer has pointed out, the firm Kaplan chose, Seward & Kissel, likely has ties to Chevron.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. That the highly partisan 2nd District of New York DA declined the case makes me even more suspicious that something is being concealed.

        There are methods for redacting non relevant and privileged information when electronic devices are subpoenaed.

        But climate activists have a long history of making big claims and then refusing to turn over the data for examination, or even destroying data to prevent examination.

        https://conservapedia.com/Climategate

        Like

          1. This isn’t about “climate change” though. This is just industrial pollution. It could have just as easily been Dow or DuPont or Smithfield. It just happened to be an oil drilling operation. They weren’t sued for releasing carbon into the atmosphere; they were sued for not cleaning up after themselves.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. I understand. but my point is that environmental activists have made a pattern of making grand claims and then either refusing to show their evidence or destroying it to prevent independent verification. Doesn’t matter if it’s pollution, climate or counting butterflies, if the study can’t be repeated, it didn’t happen.

            Like

          3. They have his evidence. They’ve always had his evidence because that’s how trials work. They want his electronics which he has said he will turn over if his appeal fails. In the mean time he has been charged with contempt of court and has been on house arrest pending the adjudication of that charge. The RICO case against him has fallen apart because the witness Chevron was paying recanted his testimony.

            If you or I were found guilty of criminal contempt of court, we MIGHT do a day in jail. He has done TWO YEARS of house arrest for a civil charge.

            The right’s crusade against environmental activists is completely immaterial to what is happening to this guy.

            Liked by 2 people

    2. Your faith in the courts is on full display. When corporate America goes to court, they are the Wisconsin and the plaintiffs (or defendants as the case may be) are a Zodiac.

      Just like #45, sue and countersue until the opposition is broke and ruined. Truth means crap. Justice? Don’t make me laugh.

      Politics has always had a bit of theater, no question. Since Gingrich, the shows are more fiction than fact.
      Since Trump, we have the theater of the absurd.

      Which is precisely what the right wing wants: show trials, dictatorships, and power.

      Liked by 2 people

  1. Anyone haileded by Miss scowl face Greta Thunburg deserves time in the dungeon. Oh, she scares me so, not… Besides, climate nazis have a habit of hiding the truth behind their overblown assertions.

    Just give up the electronics for examination and the “poor” guy can go about his business, right? Or is he afraid he’s in deep doo doo if he does?

    Like

      1. We are all so impressed you can’t take a joke. Go play save a butterfly in the middle of interstate rush hour traffic to lighten up a bit.

        Like

    1. Miss Scowl Face? I had to look that one up. I found the source. Once when GT crossed paths with Trump at the UN she looked at him slightly askance. Here is the actual moment in question . . .

      https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9989657/greta-thunberg-donald-trump-glare-un-climate-speech/

      Ever since you sad people have been tweeting this “scowl face” meme back and forth because that SO refutes the points she is trying to make about the destruction of the environment.

      Look at the clip again. See how little it takes to enflame the weak-minded and get Trump dummies to repeat a really stupid meme?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. She’s a self righteous brat. Funny how you supposed adults fawn over an attitudinal child who quit school.

        Like

        1. It’s really kind of sad. She is severely autistic and basically a puppet for her activist father.

          You can’t really blame her but those who use her as a prop deserve a very nasty place in hell.

          Like

          1. The simple fact is that she is Autistic. She calls it her superpower.

            She does speak without being prompted by her father.

            So, I guess you are finally conceding that truth is Trumpian.

            Like

          2. Your uglu bold-faced lies and slanders are not the truth. But they are Trumpian.

            She has autism but she is obviously not “severely autistic” nor is she a “puppet” nor a “prop” for her father or anybody else. It is not surprising that she shares her parents’ values. Most kids do.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. While claiming that there is a special place in Hell for her very supportive father, you do not hesitate to level scurrilous attacks plucked from the nether regions of the internet. She is a “puppet.” She is a “prop.” She cannot think or speak for herself. She is too ill to see clearly. In short, what a jackass!

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I followed the link, I read the sub-head and stopped.

            “Climate-change alarmists shouldn’t be using a vulnerable child to promote their cause.”

            That told me everything I needed to know about where this was going. Anyone with a real and obective concern for Greta’s health would not tee it up like that.

            None of your ad hominem bullshit nor any similar material that you can dig up from your special websites says ANYTHING to rebut her concerns. She says that we are despoiling the earth, that doing so is dangerous and that we ought to stop. She is 100% correct no matter what some self-appointed mind reader has to say about her mental processes.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. So, you discounted testimony from a person uniquely qualified to inform you because he doesn’t agree with your partisan agenda.

            Pretty much as expected.

            Like

          6. “Pretty much as expected.”

            There is your problem. No critical thinking skills. There was no “testimony” in that piece. It was a glowing example of argumentum ad hominem. Don’t listen to Greta because she is sick.

            It was a mish mash of assumptions and logical flaws. He has ZERO knowledge of the mental state of anyone other than himself. He assumes that her mind is just like his. He argues that Greta has not conquered her sickness because she is gloomy about the future of the earth and he is not. That says NOTHING about whose view is closer to reality. It is a combination of the ad hominem fallacy and of begging the question.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “But you are certain of her mental state,”…

            You appear to be guilty of the same thing. Truth be told not all people with Autism or Asperger’s operate at the exact same level. It is akin to saying all Jews are rich and control the world or all Black people are lazy.

            Like

          8. I DO give you way too much credit. This is not hard to understand.

            I know nothing of her “mental state.” Neither does he. Neither do you.
            The truth of what she says has NOTHING to do with her “mental state.”
            Her “mental state” is completely irrelevant.
            This attack on her “mental state” (and her parents’s character) is pure and nasty argumentum ad hominem.

            Do I have to explain “begging the question” too? Okay. This fellow ASSUMES that he is right to be optimistic about the environment and she is wrong to be pessimistic. The very point he is trying to prove by denigrating her “mental state” because she disagrees with him is the evidence that she is still sick while he is healthy.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. No, he did not take a position on the underlying issue.

            What he did point out is that people with Aspergers, which he shares with her, are known to be overly pessimistic and driven by anxiety.

            He is quite qualified in sharing the limitations of the condition.

            Like

          10. “He is quite qualified in sharing the limitations of the condition.”

            No, he is quite qualified in sharing the limitations of HIS condition. Not all “aspies” are the same.

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “No, he did not take a position on the underlying issue.”

            Nonsense! Did you not read the piece? He summarized it for you in the sub-heading.

            “Climate-change alarmists shouldn’t be using a vulnerable child to promote their cause.”

            Read it again . . . “Climate change alarmists . . .”

            I characterized it fairly and accurately. It is an ad hominem hit piece and nothing else.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. Well, her parents ARE climate change alarmists. There is zero scientific support for the doomsday scenario her father trumpets through her.

            And in any case, that does not contradict his expertise on the limitations of Aspergers.

            Like

          13. If he calls her parents “alarmists” he IS taking a position.

            You still do not understand the simple to understand ad hominem fallacy. Is it because you choose not to or because it is too hard for you? You or this fellow can throw brickbats at this young lady all you want. It does not refute her basic message.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. Her basic message, that we face climate doom, is garbage.

            There are costs to climate change, but there are costs to trying to avoid it. Balancing those costs is the rational route.

            All or nothing gets nothing.

            Like

          15. “Her basic message, that we face climate doom, is garbage.”

            That MAY or MAY NOT be true. I will not bother to argue with you. But the point is that attacking her “mental state” is a fallacious and, since she is so young, nasty argument.

            Liked by 1 person

          16. May or May not? Show us the peer reviewed evaluation that projects an existential threat.

            And as long as Saint Greta is held out as an authority, her mental state is very relevant. Especially as her condition predisposes her to see threats that are not real.

            Like

          17. “. . . an existential threat.”

            It is pointless to argue with someone who cannot distinguish simple terms such as “unlikely,” or “unknown” from “impossible.” You are looking for certainty where none is possible.

            I will stipulate, therefore, that there is no prediction of CERTAIN “existential threat” (however you are defining that today) to the entire planet. However, there are plenty of models that predict damaging changes from human activity that will produce “existential threats” to many hundreds of millions of people. There are, of course, many unknowns both in terms of feedback loops and human responses to the threats.

            Thunberg is a political figure not a scientist. Your attacks on her are political, not scientific. You do not like her message but cannot refute it with CERTAINTY and HATE it that her message resonates so out comes the slime and the nonsense about the terrible harm that will follow if America transitions to greener energy.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “He’s being railroaded by a private prosecutor and a hand-selected judge for the crime of winning a class action lawsuit against Chevron.”

    Not exactly. The original suit was tried in Ecuador and the decision (1993) went against Chevron, but multiple international courts have refused to enforce the judgement. For example, in 2014, a U.S. District Court judge declined an appeal for enforcement, citing evidence of a criminal conspiracy on the part of Donziger and his associates. The judge ordered the district attorney to prosecute Donziger on RICO charges, but the DA refused. The judge therefore appointed a private prosecutor to pursue the case.

    The original lawsuit in Ecuador was a corrupt and cynical attempt by environmentalists to extort billions of dollars from an oil company. Donziger and his co-conspirators deserve whatever trouble they created for themselves in the effort.

    Like

    1. Amazing.

      Yeah, generally when the DA declines to prosecute a case it’s because they’ve looked at all the evidence and decided there’s not enough there to prosecute. It raises a few eyebrows when the judge then allows the plaintiff to select a private prosecutor. It’s even stranger when the random judge selection process is bypassed in favor of a judge who also has ties to the plaintiff. Stranger still is being placed on a multi-year house arrest for a contempt of court charge (not a conviction).

      I’m sure you guys are right though. I’m sure this is completely above board and is in no way meant to be a message to other attorneys who may get ideas about trying to hold Chevron accountable to the people whose lives they’ve ruined.

      Liked by 3 people

    2. The case was originally filed in NYC where Chevron was headquartered. Chevron asked that the case be tried in Ecuador, this request was granted by US courts on the condition that Chevron accept the ruling of the Ecuadorian court. When the Ecuadorian courts ruled against Chevron (ruling upheld by 3 appellate courts), it moved all of its assets out of Ecuador.

      Most of Chevron’s case against Donziger is based on testimony from Ecuadorean judge, Alberto Guerra. Chevron moved Guerra and his family to the US, funding their immigration lawyers and fees. Chevron also paid Guerra $12,000 monthly. Guerra later testified that he had fabricated the “evidence” against Donziger.

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s