new | show | ask | jobs Github

ufmace 5 hours ago

[flagged]

▲

xrd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I've been really fascinated by Donziger for a while:

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

It's a great story that documents the shifting winds of legal systems across continents.

My takeaway: there is zero consistency or absolute truth in any legal system.

"Human rights campaigners called Chevron's actions an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)"

"Chevron requested that the case be tried in Ecuador and, in 2002, the US court dismissed the plaintiffs case based on forum non conveniens and ruled that Ecuador had jurisdiction. The US court exacted a promise from Chevron that it would accept the decision of the Ecuadorian courts."

"A provincial Ecuadorean court found Chevron guilty in 2011 and awarded the plaintiffs $18 billion in damages. The decision was affirmed by three appellate courts including Ecuador's highest court, the National Court of Justice, although the damages were reduced to $9.5 billion."

But now, *Ecuador must pay Chevron* for damages:

"In 2018, the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled that the $9.5 billion judgment in Ecuador was marked by fraud and corruption and "should not be recognised or enforced by the courts of other States." The amount Ecuador must pay to Chevron to compensate for damages is yet to be determined. The panel also stated that the corruption was limited to one judge, not the entire Ecuadorean legal system."

▲

swiftcoder 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> they're like 90% left-wing activists

I'm not sure that's an accurate description. Are "Human Rights" inherently left-wing? Is environmental protection inherently left-wing? Is political corruption inherently right wing?

This is of legal experts each with 30+ years of experience in the fields with which this trial is concerned (environmentalism, corruption, humans rights abuses).

	▲	ufmace an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Perhaps anti-oil activists would have been a better term. That seems more plainly true to me. They might or might not have had more valid cases in their respective pasts. But it doesn't seem right to me to term themselves "trial monitors" when they seem pretty plainly biased for one side of the trial. It would be more okay if they had some pro-oil attorneys on their board too, or called themselves "Greenpeace Defenders" or something. I know, it's hardly the first or the most egregious case of deceptive naming out there. But it's still worth calling out in my opinion, especially when it it still, at the time of this writing, on the top of the HN thread about this, described as if they were unbiased legal experts.