Interesting comment, Mr. Ergot! You’re wrong, though, to say that “nobody really seems to dispute that the oil company is responsible for massive environmental degradation.” Chevron does indeed dispute that it is factually or legally responsible for the pollution that is still present.

Peter, my comment about lawyers and laymen was probably too snarky. Of course you’re entitled to comment. I do think that anyone with a lot of confidence about how this case will ultimately come out is probably overconfident. (That applies to Chevron partisans as well as, perhaps, to you).

Dear Mr. Lynn,

You state that Chevron’s lawyers “do not appear to have proven that any fraud took place.” I can only assume that you are not familiar with the massive evidence of fraud committed by plaintiffs’ counsel in the Lago Agrio case. Even before the RICO trial and its additional revelations, I summarized the evidence of fraud last July. If you wish to delve into the question, you may find my summary at http://business-humanrights.org/media/documents/cassel-summary-fraud-chevron-ecuador-lawsuit.pdf.

I have no objections to you being un-American (in fact it’s a positive), and am quite aware that you and Mr Cassel know a lot more about the law than I do. Therefore, if I learn anything from you through this, then I would regard that as a bonus.
However, I believe there are reasons to be confident. Firstly, RICO is an entirely innappropriate statute for this litigation. Written to help convict crime bosses, such as the Mafia, to apply it in order to undermine a verdict issued from a court in another country is surely stretching the statute in a way that is not going to sit comfortably with the 2nd circuit.
Then there is the question of jurisdiction. We see here why Chevron have used RICO. There probably is no other statute which is appropriate, because ruling on the validity of verdicts from courts in different countries is not the business of American courts. If a court in Ecuador tried to overrule the American supreme court, they would be laughed out of town. This is also going to cause problems for the 2nd circuit.
Then there is the lack of remedy under RICO. I guess that what Chevron want is some sort of anti enforcement injunction, but the 2nd circuit have already reversed Kaplans first injunction, so why would they not do the same for any similar injunctions? So, finding for Chevron does nothing more than give them an argument that they can take abroad to try to defend against assett seizure. But the courts in other countries are not bound by it in any way, and the language coming out of the Canadian courts suggest they are unimpressed by Chevrons conduct so far.
Finally there is the fact that Chevron do not appear to have proven that any fraud took place. Randy Mastro stated, with dramatic effect, that Donzigers audacity would have caused a Mafia boss to blush. Yet beneath the rhetoric there is no substance. Given that they have had unprecedented access to all of Donzigers private diaries, laptops, hours of video footage and an army of lawyers to sift through it all, I find it inconcievable that they would not have been able to build a really bulletproof case, if fraud had actually occurred. Instead their case hinges on a dodgy witness and misquotes, examples of which are given in Donzigers final brief (that’s the one before this one!).
But for all that, you are right, and my confidence is probably misplaced. The law is complex, miscarriages of justice are frequent and Chevron are past masters at getting away with murder – literally.

I’m no zealot, and I think time spent looking for the correct bluebook rule is more often than not time wasted. However, the point of good citation form is to enable readers to easily verify the legal authority you’re using to support your claims. The Bluebook errors I saw were more than superficial. For example, on page 19, he cites “Id. at 340” (presumably referring to Chevron’s brief) when the previous citation is to Clapper. Although the error might seem harmless, it’s a source of distraction.

Go for it, Walker! Although I think you will find that the Blue Book loses some of its totemic power upon graduation.