<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Lago Agrio: FOIA Update	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2014/04/23/lago-agrio-foia-update/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2014/04/23/lago-agrio-foia-update/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:57:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: walker		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2014/04/23/lago-agrio-foia-update/#comment-1843</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[walker]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2014 15:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=18020#comment-1843</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[re your thoughts on Chevron&#039;s apparent hypocrisy. Two things come to mind. First, the audience that matters are the US population and political elite. As to Ecuador&#039;s use of its own courts, presumably the parallel holds true in the sense that Correa is mindful of popular opinion in Ecuador. But I think this is just a case of Chevron and Ecuador attempting to take advantage of forum biases, Chevron in order to avoid the judgment, Correa to suppress dissent and cast his political problems as caused by outside (likely &lt;i&gt;yanqui&lt;/i&gt;) bad actors.

Second, if you accept that using the courts to disparage your opponents is okay, then it hardly seems reasonable to expect Chevron to do so but insert a disclaimer into its filings to the effect that what it is doing is just part of its PR campaign or that &quot;these are only allegations and are not true until proven in a court of law and upheld by an appellate court&quot;. That defeats the entire purpose, no?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>re your thoughts on Chevron&#8217;s apparent hypocrisy. Two things come to mind. First, the audience that matters are the US population and political elite. As to Ecuador&#8217;s use of its own courts, presumably the parallel holds true in the sense that Correa is mindful of popular opinion in Ecuador. But I think this is just a case of Chevron and Ecuador attempting to take advantage of forum biases, Chevron in order to avoid the judgment, Correa to suppress dissent and cast his political problems as caused by outside (likely <i>yanqui</i>) bad actors.</p>
<p>Second, if you accept that using the courts to disparage your opponents is okay, then it hardly seems reasonable to expect Chevron to do so but insert a disclaimer into its filings to the effect that what it is doing is just part of its PR campaign or that &#8220;these are only allegations and are not true until proven in a court of law and upheld by an appellate court&#8221;. That defeats the entire purpose, no?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
