undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdarawk5y ago0 comments

The judge admitted that before the appellate court ruling:

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160808006005/en/U.S...

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

The appellate court could have and would have considered this, and decided that it did not reverse the finding of the lower court.

0 comments

knl5y ago

Isn’t then the court statement illogical? The judge admitted he lied, yet the appellate court states that they uphold the original verdict because Dozinger bribed the judge?

darawkOP5y ago

Probably worth reading the actual appellate court decision:

https://theamazonpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CA2-Opi...

Notably, their appeal didn't even challenge the factual findings of the lower court with regards to their own corruption. So, there isn't even any real dispute about that. They did obtain the verdict corruptly, what they attempted to challenge was the legal authority of the lower court to overturn the Ecuadorian decision, and the appellate court rejected that.

wombatmobile5y ago

Any thoughts, darawk, about the "more than 16 million gallons of crude oil, 80 times more oil than was spilled in BP’s 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster."? You do know that the oil wasn't "spilled" in the Amazon forest, don't you? It was placed in unlined pits, which were never rehabilitated.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse