If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClear)   US courts side with Chevron over Ecuador. Of course they did   (realclear.com) divider line 53
    More: Stupid, Ecuador, Texaco  
•       •       •

3125 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Mar 2014 at 1:19 PM (28 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-06 12:18:11 PM
Thanks, Clinton.
 
2014-03-06 12:51:26 PM
Well to be fair, Chevron has the bigger army.
 
2014-03-06 01:20:43 PM
That's it, we're living in a cyberpunk novel.
 
2014-03-06 01:24:42 PM

Cagey B: Well to be fair, Chevron has the bigger army.


And is more honest than the Ecuadoran government:



Link
 
2014-03-06 01:27:58 PM
The original case against Chevron was a decent case.  The attorneys just got insanely greedy and started making shiat up, hoping Chevron would knuckle under and settle.  Kind of like what eventually happened with the asbestos suits.
 
2014-03-06 01:29:06 PM
It's official.  Fark will root for anyone against the US.
 
2014-03-06 01:30:28 PM
Remind me not to get sued in Ecuador. Yikes, Ecuador, your civil court system. Not good.
 
2014-03-06 01:32:16 PM

The Muthaship: It's official.  Fark will root for anyone against the US. oil companies.


FTFY. And "imokwiththis.jpg"
 
2014-03-06 01:33:49 PM

The Muthaship: It's official.  Fark will root for anyone against the US.


ts4.mm.bing.net
Broad strokes

(giggity)
 
2014-03-06 01:33:57 PM
Kaplan's ruling bars the Ecuadoran plaintiffs from enforcing Ecuador's ruling in a US court. But he said it did not affect plaintiffs' efforts to enforce the judgment outside the US.

Good luck doing business in South America, Chevron.
 
2014-03-06 01:36:42 PM

mbillips: The Muthaship: It's official.  Fark will root for anyone against the US. and oil companies.

FTFY. And "imokwiththis.jpg"


FTFY

You are both right
 
2014-03-06 01:36:51 PM

The Muthaship: It's official.  Fark will root for anyone against the US.


Really was not a case of US vs. Ecuador but more of a verdict against the plaintiff's attorney.
 
2014-03-06 01:37:43 PM

The Muthaship: It's official.  Fark will root for anyone against the US.


It's almost as though Fark is filled with traitors, libtards, and terrorist sympathizers. And yet you're here among them. That raises all sorts of questions. Why do you hate America?
 
2014-03-06 01:37:55 PM

The Muthaship: It's official.  Fark will root for anyone against the US.


I didn't know that Chevron was the US?
 
2014-03-06 01:42:46 PM

hasty ambush: Cagey B: Well to be fair, Chevron has the bigger army.

And is more honest than the Ecuadoran government:

Link


And Chevron was just fine with Ecuadorian corruption until Ecuador started being corrupt against Chevron, as opposed to being corrupt in Chevron's favor.
 
2014-03-06 01:44:46 PM
Hasn't this farking trial been going on for 20 years?
 
2014-03-06 01:45:36 PM

monoski: Really was not a case of US vs. Ecuador but more of a verdict against the plaintiff's attorney.


TenJed_77: I didn't know that Chevron was the US?


Seems like the headline heavily implies that the US court acted improperly.  Let me look again.....


Yep, that's what it said.
 
2014-03-06 02:01:50 PM
If anyone actually read the article, they'd notice the Ecuadorian court was corrupt as fark, and this was basically a show put on by Ecuador to justify seizing Chevron's money without the international community throwing a fit.
 
2014-03-06 02:06:38 PM

jigger: Hasn't this farking trial been going on for 20 years?


Yes.  Texaco had a partnership with an Ecuadorian oil company and caused pollution in an area.  Chevron bought Texaco and assumed their liabilities.  Chevron settled their part of the claims concerning the issue with the Ecuadorian government and did some cleanup related to that while the Ecuadorian oil company continued to exploit the area and pollute. Ecuadorian citizens sued Chevron over the pollution.  Chevron argued that their part of the claims had been resolved via the agreement with Ecuador and that they should go after the other oil company.  The Ecuadorian citizens lawsuits also utilized witnesses who the plaintiffs lawyers were paying and resulted in the Ecuadorian judge awarding a large amount of damages.  The US courts have declined to enforce that judgment due to bias in the proceedings.

Do these indigenous Ecuadorian plaintiffs deserve some compensation for the destruction of their land by oil companies? They probably do.  The question resolves around who should pay and of course they are targeting the larger non-local oil company because of deep pockets and it being easier to target the outsider company rather than a local one.  Certainly courts operate a bit differently in other countries and the rules and acceptable practices may not translate to US standards.  After all you wouldn't want a North Korean court judgment being enforceable just because there is a judgment against a person or corporation. Similarly the Ecuadorian court relying on an "independent" expert witness who was being paid by the plaintiffs can create doubts about his independence. That is not to say experts can't be paid by parties involved, but it has to be known that the experts have a stake in the proceeding. Given the flaws in the procedure and case history, it was likely for the US courts to reject this judgment against Chevron.

Chevron may be evil and committing vast harm in a number of locations. They very well may have destroyed this area in Ecuador and probably did get a sweetheart deal to remove liability from the Ecuadorian government that lined the pockets of the government leadership rather than those who were harmed.  That doesn't mean that the procedure followed in this case can be flawed and biased yet still enforceable in the US.
 
2014-03-06 02:10:56 PM

FormlessOne: Kaplan's ruling bars the Ecuadoran plaintiffs from enforcing Ecuador's ruling in a US court. But he said it did not affect plaintiffs' efforts to enforce the judgment outside the US.

Good luck doing business in South America, Chevron.


Um yeah, you know how I know you don't know anything about economics?
 
2014-03-06 02:14:57 PM

The Muthaship: It's official.  Fark will root for anyone against the US.


This. Not to mention that the purpose of the US federal government is to protect US interests abroad. Even if we are wrong or did something bad.
 
2014-03-06 02:15:31 PM

keypusher: hasty ambush: Cagey B: Well to be fair, Chevron has the bigger army.

And is more honest than the Ecuadoran government:

Link

And Chevron was just fine with Ecuadorian corruption until Ecuador started being corrupt against Chevron, as opposed to being corrupt in Chevron's favor.


Is that not how it works all over?  Look at at our own country  Democrats and Republicans are far more tolerant of corruptions by their own politicians than those of opposing parties.
 
2014-03-06 02:16:29 PM

ignacio: If anyone actually read the article, they'd notice the Ecuadorian court was corrupt as fark, and this was basically a show put on by Ecuador to justify seizing Chevron's money without the international community throwing a fit.


My understanding is that Chevron didn't cause the damage in the first place they bought a company that did, so they cleaned up some damage to the satisfaction of the government but the government seems to have changed its mind and made up this little show trial to get some more money out of Chevron.

And Daedalus27 already explained things better actually so just read his post.
 
2014-03-06 02:22:18 PM
I would guess the judge's name wasn't Nicolas Maduro.
 
2014-03-06 02:24:25 PM
when the judege wirtes a 400+ page opinion against you and says that as a lawyer you and your legal team  are an offense to to people everywhere who hold the rule of law important, well let's just say consequuences will never be the same.
 
2014-03-06 02:24:52 PM

FLMountainMan: The original case against Chevron was a decent case.  The attorneys just got insanely greedy and started making shiat up, hoping Chevron would knuckle under and settle.  Kind of like what eventually happened with the asbestos suits.


I like how they offered $500,000USD to get the judge to not only rule in their favor, but also to write his verdict for him.

I'm talking about the plaintiffs here, not Chevron.
 
2014-03-06 02:31:41 PM
I love the libtards who just line up against big oil. Let me quote from the ruling:

Speaking of the Ecuador lawyers: "They then paid a Colorado consulting firm secretly to write all or most of the global expert's report, falsely presented the report as the work of the court-appointed and supposedly impartial expert, and told half-truths or worse to U.S. courts in attempts to prevent exposure of that and other wrongdoing. Ultimately, the LAP team wrote the Lago Agrio court's Judgment themselves and promised $500,000 to the Ecuadorian judge to rule in their favor and sign their judgment. If ever there were a case warranting equitable relief with respect to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it. "

Judge Kaplan, who wrote the above, is a Bill Clinton appointee. But go ahead with the Big Oil bad thread.
 
2014-03-06 02:51:48 PM

Taxcheat: Judge Kaplan, who wrote the above, is a Bill Clinton appointee. But go ahead with the Big Oil bad thread.


As much as I hate oil companies, I agree with Taxcheat here. That Ecuadorian judgment is a bunch of bullshiat, and while Chevron no doubt owes money to lots of people everywhere for misdeeds, allowing bullshiat judgments would lead to terrible mischief.


Also,

FTFA: "If ever there was were a case warranting equitable relief with respect to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it," Kaplan wrote.

Use the &$^#! subjunctive. Federal judge should know better.
 
2014-03-06 03:08:25 PM

Foxxinnia: ignacio: If anyone actually read the article, they'd notice the Ecuadorian court was corrupt as fark, and this was basically a show put on by Ecuador to justify seizing Chevron's money without the international community throwing a fit.

My understanding is that Chevron didn't cause the damage in the first place they bought a company that did, so they cleaned up some damage to the satisfaction of the government but the government seems to have changed its mind and made up this little show trial to get some more money out of Chevron.

And Daedalus27 already explained things better actually so just read his post.


Just like I said, Corrupt ecuadorian government put on a show trial to extort money from Chevron.
 
2014-03-06 03:22:42 PM
And even after all this Chevron has not cleaned up one drop of the crap they spewed into the environment.
The farmers fields are still farked up.
The surrounding waterways are still farked up.
The jungle is still farked up.
The wildlife (what's left of it) is still farked up.
The whole area is still farked up.

And now with this decision it will stay farked up.
Why is that?
Chevron Using 60 Law Firms and 2,000 Legal Personnel To Evade Ecuador Environmental Liability, Company Reports

FTL: "The company is now spending a whopping $400 million annually on legal costs to try to evade its obligation to pay the judgment, according to estimates from representatives of the communities in Ecuador who brought the lawsuit. "This is probably the most money any company in history has spent defending itself on environmental claims," said Aaron Page, a U.S. lawyer for the Ecuadorians. "The total legal cost for Chevron shareholders is likely approaching $2 billion and it is rising fast."

/wonder how much it would have cost Chevron to clean all it's sh*t up before it got $19B bad?
 
2014-03-06 03:35:30 PM

rewind2846: And even after all this Chevron has not cleaned up one drop of the crap they spewed into the environment.
The farmers fields are still farked up.
The surrounding waterways are still farked up.
The jungle is still farked up.
The wildlife (what's left of it) is still farked up.
The whole area is still farked up.

And now with this decision it will stay farked up.
Why is that?
Chevron Using 60 Law Firms and 2,000 Legal Personnel To Evade Ecuador Environmental Liability, Company Reports

FTL: "The company is now spending a whopping $400 million annually on legal costs to try to evade its obligation to pay the judgment, according to estimates from representatives of the communities in Ecuador who brought the lawsuit. "This is probably the most money any company in history has spent defending itself on environmental claims," said Aaron Page, a U.S. lawyer for the Ecuadorians. "The total legal cost for Chevron shareholders is likely approaching $2 billion and it is rising fast."

/wonder how much it would have cost Chevron to clean all it's sh*t up before it got $19B bad?


Tell the locals to go take it up w/ the shiatheads running Petroecuador
 
2014-03-06 03:42:22 PM

rewind2846: And even after all this Chevron has not cleaned up one drop of the crap they spewed into the environment.
The farmers fields are still farked up.
The surrounding waterways are still farked up.
The jungle is still farked up.
The wildlife (what's left of it) is still farked up.
The whole area is still farked up.

And now with this decision it will stay farked up.
Why is that?
Chevron Using 60 Law Firms and 2,000 Legal Personnel To Evade Ecuador Environmental Liability, Company Reports

FTL: "The company is now spending a whopping $400 million annually on legal costs to try to evade its obligation to pay the judgment, according to estimates from representatives of the communities in Ecuador who brought the lawsuit. "This is probably the most money any company in history has spent defending itself on environmental claims," said Aaron Page, a U.S. lawyer for the Ecuadorians. "The total legal cost for Chevron shareholders is likely approaching $2 billion and it is rising fast."

/wonder how much it would have cost Chevron to clean all it's sh*t up before it got $19B bad?


Less than it would to actually clean it up (assuming you believe they have an obligation to clean some of it up given what they have already done, the previous settlement with Ecuador, and the local oil companies continued pollution in the area). It makes some sense to spend this much defending against the lawsuits because of the belief that Ecuador would never agree that the obligation is ever extinguished and would continue to demand payments indefinitely into the future.  Spending a lot of money now to kill the threat of liability may be better than agreeing to pay for the next few decades or more.  Once you acknowledge your liability, you give up the claim and now it is merely a matter of how much you owe.  Given this case history, that amount Chevron may be ordered to pay could be enormous so 2b-3b now is better than 100b+ into the future.  The most disturbing thing is that those actually harmed by the exploitation of the oil will receive little if any of the proceeds.  Instead any damages awarded will likely go to enriching the Ecuadorian government, connected businessmen, and lawyers while giving a pittance to those living in the region.
 
2014-03-06 04:02:14 PM
Please don't think I am defending Chevron.  I am defending the desire for a fair process.  I am also acknowledging the realities of the situation and the fact there are no winners here in regards to the individuals actually harmed by the pollution.  If the plaintiffs win, the government and their favorites get the money as opposed to those who have had their lives and land fouled in the past, present, and future. If the plaintiffs lose, Chevron benefits from the lax industry practices in the past and is not held responsible for what they have done.  Given the conduct of the plaintiffs, there was little choice by the US judge in acknowledging the corruption and bias in the Ecuadorian courts ruling rendering it unenforceable.  That doesn't mean that Chevron is innocent, it just means that they can't be found liable in this case.
 
2014-03-06 04:33:58 PM
Since when does the US court system have jurisdiction in foreign countries.
 
2014-03-06 04:38:21 PM

Gunboat: Taxcheat: Judge Kaplan, who wrote the above, is a Bill Clinton appointee. But go ahead with the Big Oil bad thread.

As much as I hate oil companies, I agree with Taxcheat here. That Ecuadorian judgment is a bunch of bullshiat, and while Chevron no doubt owes money to lots of people everywhere for misdeeds, allowing bullshiat judgments would lead to terrible mischief.


Also,

FTFA: "If ever there was were a case warranting equitable relief with respect to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it," Kaplan wrote.

Use the &$^#! subjunctive. Federal judge should know better.


Nah, the judge is correct.

Basically, you would use the subjunctive if there really weren't something.

In this case, I believe the judge thinks there are cases warranting equitable relief, so he used "was".

Now if there were unicorns farting rainbows in Ecuador, you'd have a point.
 
2014-03-06 04:43:33 PM

ShadowKamui: Tell the locals to go take it up w/ the shiatheads running Petroecuador


Chevron decided to buy it, they are responsible. It's like adopting a kid... you get to deal with the anger issues, the ADD and the assholiness as well as the good grades, the hugs and the love.
If you're not prepared for whatever might happen, don't take on the responsibility.

All corporations like these consider when they make deals like these are the profits they're going to make on the backs of the locals, and that sh*t has to stop. Had this case not been farked up by the plaintiffs lawyers, it would have gone a long way to that end.
 
2014-03-06 04:46:17 PM

gfid: Gunboat: Taxcheat: Judge Kaplan, who wrote the above, is a Bill Clinton appointee. But go ahead with the Big Oil bad thread.

As much as I hate oil companies, I agree with Taxcheat here. That Ecuadorian judgment is a bunch of bullshiat, and while Chevron no doubt owes money to lots of people everywhere for misdeeds, allowing bullshiat judgments would lead to terrible mischief.


Also,

FTFA: "If ever there was were a case warranting equitable relief with respect to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it," Kaplan wrote.

Use the &$^#! subjunctive. Federal judge should know better.

Nah, the judge is correct.

Basically, you would use the subjunctive if there really weren't something.

In this case, I believe the judge thinks there are cases warranting equitable relief, so he used "was".

Now if there were unicorns farting rainbows in Ecuador, you'd have a point.


You have sent me running for my grammar book. Too bad I'm stuck in the car right now but rest assured I'll look it up tonight.
 
2014-03-06 04:49:52 PM

Warlordtrooper: Since when does the US court system have jurisdiction in foreign countries.


IANAL, but Chevron is incorporated in the US, so I would imagine that in the unlikely event that the US would want to enforce the judgment, it would have some leverage to do so. I think of it vaguely like agreeing to extradite an American citizen for an offense in a foreign country, but again I have no GED in law so I could be way off.
 
2014-03-06 04:57:57 PM

rewind2846: ShadowKamui: Tell the locals to go take it up w/ the shiatheads running Petroecuador

Chevron decided to buy it, they are responsible. It's like adopting a kid... you get to deal with the anger issues, the ADD and the assholiness as well as the good grades, the hugs and the love.
If you're not prepared for whatever might happen, don't take on the responsibility.

All corporations like these consider when they make deals like these are the profits they're going to make on the backs of the locals, and that sh*t has to stop. Had this case not been farked up by the plaintiffs lawyers, it would have gone a long way to that end.


Chevron decided to buy Texaco which had a joint venture with PetroEcuador.  Chevron reached a settlement with Ecuador over their responsibility for the site and did some cleanup that resolved the issue according to them.  PetroEcuador took over sole operations at the site over 20 years ago and continues to operate in the area and has continued to pollute the area.  Sure Chevron may have some responsibility for the years prior to that (assuming you don't believe the previous settlement was valid) but at some point you also have to look to who has continued to pollute the area for the past 20 years.  It isn't as if the area is untouched since Chevron operated in the area so showing that the damage caused is from 20 years ago as opposed to the spill 20 days ago isn't as easy as your making it out.

Pointing the finger at PetroEcuador can be seen as a cop out by Chevron by some, but in this case, there is probably something to it.  Is it really right to focus on the consequences of 20 years ago that we are punishing while ignoring the past few decades of action and operation by PetroEcuador?  I am not saying Chevron should be let off the hook but they did do something to settle previous claims and it seems like the present lawsuits are going after deep pockets and unpopular foreigners, rather than trying to target who may have caused more damage, but is protected by the Ecuadorian government.
 
2014-03-06 04:58:23 PM

Cagey B: Warlordtrooper: Since when does the US court system have jurisdiction in foreign countries.

IANAL, but Chevron is incorporated in the US, so I would imagine that in the unlikely event that the US would want to enforce the judgment, it would have some leverage to do so. I think of it vaguely like agreeing to extradite an American citizen for an offense in a foreign country, but again I have no GED in law so I could be way off.


I think the deal is that Chevron has no current business in Ecuador, so they simply ignored the (bullshiat) judgement against them, and the plaintiffs then sued in US court to try to get the money from them here.
 
2014-03-06 05:04:15 PM

Cagey B: Warlordtrooper: Since when does the US court system have jurisdiction in foreign countries.

IANAL, but Chevron is incorporated in the US, so I would imagine that in the unlikely event that the US would want to enforce the judgment, it would have some leverage to do so. I think of it vaguely like agreeing to extradite an American citizen for an offense in a foreign country, but again I have no GED in law so I could be way off.


It is a civil case, not criminal.   There is no extradition.  The lawyers were trying to get the Ecuadorian judgment for 19 billion recognized by the US courts so they could go after Chevron assets in the US to collect the money.  There are no Chevron assets in Ecuador, so they have to go to the jurisdictions where they can collect.  The US courts examined the case and found that the judgment was based on fraud and improper therefore would not be enforceable in the US so they can't get access to Chevron assets.  The Ecuadorian clients still have the judgment and they can try to enforce it elsewhere where Chevron may have assets, but again the local jurisdiction they go to would have to accept the judgment allowing the seizure of assets.  The lawyers can appeal this decision and they may move to other areas Chevron has assets in which would include Australia, South Africa, Canada, Nigeria, Angola, and other countries.  They only have to get one court to recognize the decision to gain something out of the case.
 
2014-03-06 05:21:12 PM
Still not great, but a better article here.  Note the US judge has already been over-ruled once in this matter (second page).  It ain't over yet.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ny-judge-rules-chevron-ecuador-ca se -22765862?page=2
 
2014-03-06 05:27:05 PM

Taxcheat: I love the libtards who just line up against big oil. Let me quote from the ruling:

Speaking of the Ecuador lawyers: "They then paid a Colorado consulting firm secretly to write all or most of the global expert's report, falsely presented the report as the work of the court-appointed and supposedly impartial expert, and told half-truths or worse to U.S. courts in attempts to prevent exposure of that and other wrongdoing. Ultimately, the LAP team wrote the Lago Agrio court's Judgment themselves and promised $500,000 to the Ecuadorian judge to rule in their favor and sign their judgment. If ever there were a case warranting equitable relief with respect to a judgment procured by fraud, this is it. "

Judge Kaplan, who wrote the above, is a Bill Clinton appointee. But go ahead with the Big Oil bad thread.


I love kneejerk wingnuts who back the side that hired a convicted drug kingpin:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/world/americas/15ecuador.html?ref= am ericas&_r=0
 
2014-03-06 06:14:11 PM

Daedalus27: rewind2846: ShadowKamui: Tell the locals to go take it up w/ the shiatheads running Petroecuador

Chevron decided to buy it, they are responsible. It's like adopting a kid... you get to deal with the anger issues, the ADD and the assholiness as well as the good grades, the hugs and the love.
If you're not prepared for whatever might happen, don't take on the responsibility.

All corporations like these consider when they make deals like these are the profits they're going to make on the backs of the locals, and that sh*t has to stop. Had this case not been farked up by the plaintiffs lawyers, it would have gone a long way to that end.

Chevron decided to buy Texaco which had a joint venture with PetroEcuador.  Chevron reached a settlement with Ecuador over their responsibility for the site and did some cleanup that resolved the issue according to them.  PetroEcuador took over sole operations at the site over 20 years ago and continues to operate in the area and has continued to pollute the area.  Sure Chevron may have some responsibility for the years prior to that (assuming you don't believe the previous settlement was valid) but at some point you also have to look to who has continued to pollute the area for the past 20 years.  It isn't as if the area is untouched since Chevron operated in the area so showing that the damage caused is from 20 years ago as opposed to the spill 20 days ago isn't as easy as your making it out.


This suit alleges the previous settlement doesn't bar third-party claims.  Which is what these are.  In the article, and on Wiki, Chevron, you'll note, isn't actually disputing that.  They're attacking the procedural aspects...rather than the facts.
 "Twenty years ago" sounds like a lot...unless it's all foot-dragging by the defendant.  And even if they're letting PetroEcuador off the hook...which may have sovereign immunity, if they're a quasi-government entity...that doesn't excuse wrong-doing by Chevron, if there is any.
 
2014-03-06 06:15:29 PM

ignacio: If anyone actually read the article, they'd notice the Ecuadorian court was corrupt as fark, and this was basically a show put on by Ecuador to justify seizing Chevron's money without the international community throwing a fit.


Err, no.  This article sucks.  Read more, learn more.

For bonus points, find us the ACTUAL JUDGMENT to look at.
 
2014-03-06 06:17:15 PM

jigger: Hasn't this farking trial been going on for 20 years?


As long as the Exxon Valdez proceedings.

It's almost like large companies and those with deep pockets can drag out proceedings indefinitely.
 
2014-03-06 06:19:01 PM

Foxxinnia: ignacio: If anyone actually read the article, they'd notice the Ecuadorian court was corrupt as fark, and this was basically a show put on by Ecuador to justify seizing Chevron's money without the international community throwing a fit.

My understanding is that Chevron didn't cause the damage in the first place they bought a company that did, so they cleaned up some damage to the satisfaction of the government but the government seems to have changed its mind and made up this little show trial to get some more money out of Chevron.


Nope.  The Ecuadorean government's not involved.  Plaintiff's claim their third-party claims weren't covered by the original settlement, and I haven't seen anything from Chevron disputing that.
 
2014-03-06 06:23:40 PM

Daedalus27: Please don't think I am defending Chevron.  I am defending the desire for a fair process.  I am also acknowledging the realities of the situation and the fact there are no winners here in regards to the individuals actually harmed by the pollution.  If the plaintiffs win, the government and their favorites get the money as opposed to those who have had their lives and land fouled in the past, present, and future. If the plaintiffs lose, Chevron benefits from the lax industry practices in the past and is not held responsible for what they have done.  Given the conduct of the plaintiffs, there was little choice by the US judge in acknowledging the corruption and bias in the Ecuadorian courts ruling rendering it unenforceable.  That doesn't mean that Chevron is innocent, it just means that they can't be found liable in this case.


Sure there are.  My energy-heavy investment portfolio has done extremely well over the decades, and gas has remained fairly cheap and plentiful.

Difference between me and the heavy-industry white-knighters is I acknowledge there's a little tinge of blood in my oil.

Makes the crude that much sweeter.

Sucks to be a Third World peasant.

They ever get the means to turn the tables on us, we're farked...and deservedly so.
 
2014-03-06 06:50:49 PM

ShadowKamui: rewind2846: And even after all this Chevron has not cleaned up one drop of the crap they spewed into the environment.
The farmers fields are still farked up.
The surrounding waterways are still farked up.
The jungle is still farked up.
The wildlife (what's left of it) is still farked up.
The whole area is still farked up.

And now with this decision it will stay farked up.
Why is that?
Chevron Using 60 Law Firms and 2,000 Legal Personnel To Evade Ecuador Environmental Liability, Company Reports

FTL: "The company is now spending a whopping $400 million annually on legal costs to try to evade its obligation to pay the judgment, according to estimates from representatives of the communities in Ecuador who brought the lawsuit. "This is probably the most money any company in history has spent defending itself on environmental claims," said Aaron Page, a U.S. lawyer for the Ecuadorians. "The total legal cost for Chevron shareholders is likely approaching $2 billion and it is rising fast."

/wonder how much it would have cost Chevron to clean all it's sh*t up before it got $19B bad?

Tell the locals to go take it up w/ the shiatheads running Petroecuador


Ah yes...the "Your housemates steal your shiat, so it's OK that I stole your car" school of ethics.

Poverty is the real crime here, folks.
 
2014-03-06 09:57:49 PM
There ain't no welfare like Corporate Welfare
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report