[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.

[fxtentacle]

It most certainly is.

And likely the judge punishing him received a lot of compensation from shady sources.

This shows that there is a huge difference between being right and being found right by an American court.

Probably the only chance that this lawyer has left for his life is if someone rich and powerful - who by sheer luck is unconnected to the petrol industry - takes pity on him. He'll need millions to clean up this mess and that price doesn't change no matter the facts. He could be a Saint for what it's worth and he'll still need to pay up to receive the justice that he is owed.

[Lazare]

No. Donziger won a lawsuit in Ecuador. There is some evidence that the win was the result, in part, of bribery and fraud, but that's a matter for the Ecuadorian courts, and they're apparently fine with it. So he's not in trouble for that.

However, he later started suing in various foreign courts for enforcement of that judgement, and lawsuits filed in the US are the business of US courts, and lawsuits to enforce judgements obtained via fraud, collusion, and bribery are tained. So if Donziger knew the judgement was obtained corruptly (and there's some very inconvenient footage of Donziger admitting as much to a documentary film crew...), then he's been a very naughty boy, and it's well within the right of a court to request he provide more information about what exactly he did. And the way courts enforce compliance with these requests is, yes, fines and imprisonment.

There's nothing all that weird about this. It's unfortunate because the people Donziger represented are very sympathetic, and have clearly been deeply wronged. Nonetheless, you're really not supposed lie and cheat to obtain justice for your clients.

[7532yahoogmail]

Right. Good explanation

[rayiner]

This sounds crazy because the article is narrative pieced together by taking facts from a decade-long highly complex legal case completely out of context.

After Donzinger procured the Ecuadorean judgment, Chevron filed a RICO case against him in New York: http://www.theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/Chevron-Ecua.... (Start at page 298.) Chevron sought an injunction preventing the plaintiffs from enforcing the judgment in the U.S. (i.e. starting a court proceeding in the U.S. to seize U.S. assets to pay the Ecuadorean judgment). The New York court had jurisdiction because what it was being asked to do was prevent execution of the judgment in the U.S.

Donzinger ended up under house arrest after being charged with criminal contempt for refusing to turn over documents: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.374606...

[slavik81]

I have a hard time believing that the New York Bar suspended him for winning a lawsuit.

[pytester]

I have a hard time believing that they suspended him without a hearing, describing him as an "immediate threat to public order" but they fucking did it anyway.

[rayiner]

They didn't give him a hearing because he wasn't entitled to relitigate the issue of his conduct. A principle called collateral estoppel holds that if you lose on an issue in one case, you're not entitled to relitigate that same issue in a subsequent case (so long as the standards of proof are similar between the two cases). The New York Court of Appeals wasn't entitled to decide that Donzinger hadn't committed fraud. It had to accept as true the factual findings of the Southern District, which was affirmed by the Second Circuit. The only issue before the New York court in the disciplinary case was whether, taking as true that Donzinger tried to bribe a judge, etc., whether he should be suspended. That did not require a hearing: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2018/2018_05...

> Further, respondent was afforded a full and fair opportunity to litigate, as evinced by the voluminous record on which Judge Kaplan's findings were based. Judge Kaplan conducted a seven-week trial, heard 31 live witnesses (including respondent), and considered sworn testimony of three dozen others, as well as thousands of documents. Respondent appealed Judge Kaplan's decision, yet chose not to challenge the underlying factual findings. Thus, his argument that he was denied meaningful appellate review fails.

> Because Judge Kaplan's findings constitute uncontroverted evidence of serious professional misconduct which immediately threatens the public interest, respondent should be immediately suspended, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 1240.9 (a) (5) (see e.g. Matter of Truong, 2 AD3d 27 [1st Dept 2003]).

[pytester]

>The only issue before the New York court in the disciplinary case was whether, taking as true that Donzinger tried to bribe a judge, etc., whether he should be suspended. That did not require a hearing

And it also relied upon the testimony of Alberto Guerra, who later admitted that he was lying and was paid by Chevron to lie:

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/neye7z/chevrons-star-witn....

[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.

[shkkmo]

Chevron can't "bribe" the judge... They can just pay him hundreds of thousands of dollars and get him US residency while taking extreme care in prepping his testimony (which somehow still contained lies and inconsistencies after all that prep.)

[onetimemanytime]

Oh, I meant that Chevron pays local attorney $3.7 million for fees and $2 Million are taken by that lawyer to bribe the judge. Chevron hears and sees no evil, they just pay their bills in time.

[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.

[jessaustin]

If you are "squeaky clean", what stops the "hundreds of lawyers and PIs" from just manufacturing something?