This has been going on for years.

Chevron, which some years back was presented with a multi-billion-dollar judgment related to pollution claims in Ecuador, has been engaged in a years-long battle against a coalition of lawyers, environmental groups, and activists, and its defense has been an interesting one: Not only has Chevron rejected the specific claims against it, it has maintained that the case is the result of a criminal conspiracy involving those same lawyers and environmentalists, corrupt judges, bribery, and more. The company’s general counsel, Hewitt Pate, said today: “The case against Chevron was the result of fraud, bribery, and other crimes, and its aim was extortion.”

The story might have struck many as too implausible even for a B movie, but a U.S. district court today issued a remarkable opinion confirming that the judgment against Chevron is indeed the result of fraud.

The ruling is long -- over 500 pages long. However, you can get the general sense of it from the first five pages (the first five numbered pages, after the very lengthy table of contents).

Upon consideration of all of the evidence, including the credibility of the witnesses– though several of the most important declined to testify – the Court finds that Donziger began his involvement in this controversy with a desire to improve conditions in the area in which his Ecuadorian clients live. To be sure, he sought also to do well for himself while doing good for others, but there was nothing wrong with that. In the end, however, he and the Ecuadorian lawyers he led corrupted the Lago Agrio case. They submitted fraudulent evidence. They coerced one judge, first to use a court appointed, supposedly impartial, “global expert” to make an overall damages assessment and, then, to appoint to that important role a man whom Donziger hand picked and paid to “totally play ball” with the LAPs. 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.

...

[O]ne Ecuadorian legal team member, in a moment of panicky candor, admitted that if documents exposing just part of what they had done were to come to light, “apart from destroying the proceeding, all of us, your attorneys, might go to jail.”
It is time to face the facts.

Apparently it was a seriously-offered legal argument that bribery of judges for favorable rulings is just the way it's done in Ecuador, so, you know, we ought to respect their rules and enforce their judgment here in America.

Posted by: Ace at 01:55 PM | Comments (138)
Post contains 539 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, at least that's what I got from this. Read on, but we are not responsible for any damages or staining that may result from your reaction to his blunt analysis.

more...

Posted by: CAC at 02:49 PM | Comments (208)
Post contains 805 words, total size 5 kb.

Sure, why not.

Is this America?

Just over two weeks ago, an election was held at the Volkswagen plant in my hometown of Chattanooga to determine whether the United Auto Workers would represent the workers there. UAW operatives spent two years inside the plant working to organize it. Initially, the UAW tried to take away the workers' right to vote and force its way in through "card check," an attempt to entrench the union without a democratic election. Fortunately, the company insisted on a secret ballot for its employees. They voted on Feb. 14 not to organize, although in the week leading up to the vote, only the UAW was allowed inside the plant, where the union was given an audience with the workers on company time....

On Feb. 14, the workers made their voices heard, with 53% voting against allowing the UAW to represent them. I believe that the workers understood that they were nothing more than dollar signs for the UAW. Obviously, I could not have been happier for the Volkswagen employees, for the community and for Tennessee.

Unfortunately, the UAW has chosen to ignore the employees' decision and has filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board, charging that elected officials like me should not be allowed to make public comments expressing our opinion and sharing information with our constituents. It is telling that the UAW complaint does not mention President Obama's public statement urging the employees to vote for the union.

If the National Labor Relations Board upholds these objections, it would be an unprecedented assault on free speech.

The science is settled. The debate is over. And Eric, I won.

Posted by: Ace at 12:55 PM | Comments (302)
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

This is all very strange.

I don't get this. Do you? If you get this, let me know.

The baby-faced Farrow, whose parentage has been the subject of much speculation, sometimes seems to be more fame and prestige than flesh and bone. From a young age, heÂ’s had no problem attracting the sort of people who prize those qualities. They pop up throughout the many public accounts of his brief life.

There was Holbrooke, a loyal friend of Mia Farrow’s who hired Ronan as a speechwriter when he was 15. There is Holbrooke’s formidable widow, the journalist and socialite Kati Marton, the ex-wife of Peter Jennings. There is Diane Sawyer, Holbrooke’s ex-girlfriend, who is now advising Farrow. “I’ve told him, ‘If there is anything you want to do that I have a cautionary tale about, I’ll be there.’” Sawyer told the New York Times.

And there is Hillary Clinton, who, upon Holbrooke’s death, “took Ronan under her wing.”

Farrow has these people to thank for most of the jobs and awards that adorn his résumé. Marton last year presented him with the Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Social Justice. The New York Times’ profile featured Farrow receiving an award from a foundation that aids Holocaust survivors. Last week, after just three days on the air, Farrow picked up the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Exploration and Journalism at an event at the Princeton Club in midtown Manhattan.

...

Holbrooke, who had employed him at 15 and was, according to Marton, so loyal to Mia Farrow that he forbade Marton from watching Woody Allen movies, created a position for him in Hillary ClintonÂ’s State Department.

Farrow's job paid in the six figures. It was some kind of bullshit coordination/liaison type thing with NGOs. It was obviously bullshit, because this high-paid post was eliminated after Farrow left State. It was made just for Farrow, and when he left, they got rid of the contrivance.

Now, having done very little in his life except to look almost as much like Frank Sinatra as he does not look like Woody Allen, he's signed by MSNBC for a salary in the "low millions."

What I've left back at the link is his poor ratings (he's striking out with younger viewers, but doing well, for some reason, with people over 50 who really liked Frank Sinatra), and his bizarre backdrop, which contains (as @JohnEkdahl noted on the last podcast) bits of Ronan Farrow's resume in big letters.

Posted by: Ace at 11:54 AM | Comments (389)
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

I don't know if this story would be a story at all without the epilogue. A Russia Today reporter (well, "presenter") strongly criticized Russia's "uncontested arrival" into the Crimea.

This isn't such a huge deal because Russia Today is the English-language propaganda arm of Russia. It's not primarily for broadcast into Russia, but intended as an arm of pro-Russia indoctrination for areas of the English-speaking world that don't receive the New York Times.

A bit of background on the station, and the reporter:

The English-language Russia Today is widely perceived as the voice of the Kremlin, with Reporters Without Borders describing it as a "step of the state to control information."

It is often anti-American in its coverage and has been accused of ignoring a number of human rights abuses in the country, as well as controversial issues such as the prison sentences given to punk ban[d] Pussy Riot.

Her bold statement contrasted with the station's usual coverage of the Ukrainian crisis, which broadly reflects MoscowÂ’s position.

In its reports it has described new Ukranian prime minister Arseny Yatseniuk as "self-imposed" and is sympathetic to the Russian-backed ousted president Viktor Yanukovych.

Miss Martin, who has previously labelled the US government's version of 9/11 as "propaganda", criticised the coverage of the escalating crisis from all sides of the media spectrum as "disappointing.. and rife with misinformation".

But even a dummy like Martin understands that the Crimean invasion is wrong.

So here's the epilogue. Here's what Russia Today says about her off-message messaging:

"We respect her views, and the views of all our journalists, presenters and program hosts, and there will be absolutely no reprimands made against Ms. Martin.
"In her comment Ms. Martin also noted that she does not possess a deep knowledge of reality of the situation in Crimea. As such weÂ’ll be sending her to Crimea to give her an opportunity to make up her own mind from the epicentre of the story."

Miss Martin however told the Telegraph: "I am not going to Crimea despite the statement RT has made."

By the way, Time Magazine just reported that "not only would Russia never invade Crimea, it would also never send a reporter to a warzone just for criticizing Russia."

And then they won a Peabody.

Posted by: Ace at 11:04 AM | Comments (401)
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Jim Geraghty has a round-up.

Several important things. First, from Larry O'Connor:

Their mission? Disarming Ukraine.

DONETSK, Ukraine – U.S. Senators Dick Lugar (R-IN) and Barack Obama (D-IL) called for the immediate destruction of 15,000 tons of ammunition, 400,000 small arms and light weapons, and 1,000 man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) or shoulder missile launchers that are often sought by terrorists.

Lugar and Obama toured the Donetsk State Chemical Production Plant, a conventional weapons destruction facility where the U.S. has taken the lead in a three-year NATO program to destroy the weapons. Another 117,000 tons of ammunition and 1.1 million small arms and light weapons are slated for destruction within 12 years.

If you remember, to the extent that Obama had any foreign policy experience at all, it was all based on his gadflying about with Dick Lugar on these feel-goody disarmament initiatives.

One wonders if this destruction of basic tools of self-defense will wind up seriously harming the Ukrainians. Doubtless, some things like MANPADS are a security risk for the US and we should put our interest above theirs -- but why all the destruction of routine small arms and ammo?

He also catches this prediction from a Time foreign policy expert, from a week ago: No, Russia Will Not Invade the Ukraine.

Well done, Time Magazine.

I'm leaving behind the rest of his post, including Tom Clancy being all psychic and writing a novel in which a Russian tyrant still, get this, has a revanchist interest in taking back the Ukraine.

What a silly conservative chowderhead.

James Kirchick writes in the Daily Beast of all the alleged foreign-policy "realists" who premised all of America's foreign policy on the odd notion that war-mongering tyrants would stop being tyrannical and mongering for war if we just sweet-talked them with Pure Reason.

He dismantles an NYU professor who wrote at the nation, shortly before the invasion of Ukraine, that Russia would not invade the Ukraine, and claims to the contrary were due to a biased, anti-Russian, anti-Putin media.

The most noxious of these figures is New York University professor and Nation magazine contributor Stephen Cohen. His recent opus, “Distorting Russia,” will go down in history as one of the most slavish defenses of Putinism. “Mainstream American press coverage of Russia,” Cohen writes, has been “shamefully unprofessional and politically inflammatory.” Western readers, he complains, have been subject to a “relentless demonization of Putin, with little regard for facts.” Putin—a man who presides over a rubber stamp parliament, subjects his political opponents to show trials, dispatches riot police to beat peaceful protestors, and has restricted freedom of speech and association by banning pro-gay language and demonstrations—is unfairly portrayed as an “autocrat,” Cohen says (scare quotes original).

On the contrary, the Russian president is something of a hero..... Cohen asks, “Should not Obama himself have gone to [the] Sochi [Olympics]—either out of gratitude to Putin, or to stand with Russia’s leader against international terrorists who have struck both of our countries?”

The problem with the realists is that they fail to see the moral, tactical and legal disparities that exist between the aims and methods of East and West.

As for Ukraine, Cohen believes Russia is protecting a set of legitimate interests in that formerly sovereign nation and the West is engaging in imperialist meddling. To engage in such sophistry, he has to portray the criminal former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych—who ordered the murder, in broad daylight, of dozens of his own citizens—as a decent ruler. In January, without any public hearing or parliamentary debate, the Ukrainian legislature adopted, and Yanukovych signed, a set of 10 laws that collectively smothered freedom of speech, press and association, a draft of regulations that led Yale University professor and Ukraine expert Timothy Snyder to conclude that, “On paper, Ukraine is now a dictatorship.” Cohen furiously defended Yanukovych, writing that, “In fact, the ‘paper’ legislation he’s referring to hardly constituted dictatorship, and in any event was soon repealed.” Like Putin releasing the prisoners he should never have jailed, Cohen wants us to give credit to a dictator for (temporarily, and only to save his own skin) undoing a trapping of dictatorship. The dictator giveth, and the dictator taketh away.

Eggs, omelets.

It's worth a read.

Posted by: Ace at 10:01 AM | Comments (342)
Post contains 732 words, total size 6 kb.

He literally makes mockery of the Constitution.

He is in fact trying to "fix things" -- elections, for example. His latest unilateral rewrite of American law is so transparently a purely political one that even left-leaning media says so. From the Hill:

he Obama administration is set to announce another major delay in implementing the Affordable Care Act, easing election pressure on Democrats.

As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCareÂ’s minimum coverage requirements.

Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.

The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.

He'd previously unilaterally, unconstitutionally delayed this mandate until January 15, 2015, in order to keep it from going into effect until after the November midterms. Only later did they realize that a January 15, 2014 date mean that notifications of cancelled plans would be going out October or so, just before the elections.

I remember discussing this on the podcast, and someone saying "This is going to hurt Obama," the notifications going out in October. And I said something like, "Oh that's not going to happen. Steal little, steal big."

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:33 AM | Comments (431)
Post contains 269 words, total size 2 kb.

In 2012 the GOP actually managed to pass a bill to reform the outdated and heavily in debt flood insurance program. Less than two years later they are desperately trying to undo the market oriented reforms they've already passed.

Reforms to flood insurance approved by Congress in 2012 would be scaled back under a deal reached Monday by House Republicans and Democrats.

The rare bipartisan deal, which GOP leaders plan to bring to the floor for a vote on Tuesday, responds to complaints from flooded-out constituents who said the 2012 law would require them to pay much more for federal flood insurance.

...

Conservative groups have accused GOP leaders of backing away from reforms that were meant to slowly reduce the $24 billion in debt racked up by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

Several conservative groups are calling on members of the House to vote down the bill, and say the 2012 reforms should stay in place to help reduce the NFIP's debt. Groups like the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, the National Taxpayers Union and others have come out against the bill.

What kind of reforms are the GOP so desperate to repeal?

Congress took steps in 2012 to reduce the subsidies and require rates to be based on a property’s degree of flood risk—an essential element of viable insurance. The Biggert–Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act established a multi-year phase-out of premium subsidies for commercial properties and vacation homes, and for primary residences after ownership changes.

Members of the “flood caucus” and others are now attempting to renege on the reforms at the behest of local politicians and property owners who complain that their premiums are too costly. The $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill approved in January prohibits the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) from implementing some rate changes for one year. Meanwhile, the Senate approved legislation this month to delay the subsidy phase-out for four years.

The anti-reform campaign is largely fueled by claims that legions of property owners are suffering calamitous premium shock. In fact, only 8 percent of the 5.5 million policyholders face an imminent increase, which will phase in over several years.

So the GOP manage to pass a bill that would require people to pay fair market value for insurance based on the actual risk the insured faces and phase out federal subsidies for premiums and they are feverishly working to undo that less than two years later?

It seems making it cheaper for people to live in flood prone areas is a core GOP value. Maybe even a constitutional right!

And you think they are actually going to do something about ObamaCare if you just leave them alone and stop supporting conservative challengers?

We keep hearing how the House can't do anything because it's just 1/2 of Congress. But this is a case where they DID something and could just sit back. But no, they are working hard to find away to hand back what they've already achieved. You know, like the sequester.

The best part of the big GOP wins this November will how shocked, SHOCKED some people are when electing the same old go along, get along Republicans doesn't lead to conservative action.

Sure it's cold comfort but it's better than nothing at all.

Posted by: DrewM at 07:28 AM | Comments (311)
Post contains 569 words, total size 4 kb.

Sorry, just got access to a computer. Consider this an open thread. more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 05:21 AM | Comments (453)
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

Happy Tuesday.

According to Hill sources, Obama administration is going to announce yet another Obamacare delay to help Democrat electoral chances.

Obama will unveil a budget proposal that won't go anywhere in Congress, but is also aimed at boosting the Democrats' 2014 chances. I doubt it will help them much.

These are all pretty bad, but the last two are really bad.

Keep sending those Ask the Blog questions.

[ RSS]

[On iTunes]

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:45 AM | Comments (313)
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.