“Donziger makes a valiant but undetailed attempt to justify his dealings with Cabrera, the supposedly independent expert whose opinion Donziger’s team basically wrote. Donziger argues that there was nothing untoward about his dealings with Cabrera, but if that were so, then Donziger would not have fought the issue so strenuously for so long. In prior posts, I’ve given reasons for thinking that Donziger acted wrongly here. The circumstances surrounding the Calmbacher report are similarly bad for Donziger. It seems to me that if Donziger and the LAPs are saved here, it’s by the law, not the facts.”

Paul, thanks for commenting. I think that since Barrett doesn’t really write about the merits of the RICO case, and because the best grounds for reversal of the RICO judgment are procedural and don’t require the Second Circuit to second-guess the facts that Judge Kaplan found, the ultimate fate of the RICO judgment doesn’t have much to do with the merits or demerits of Barrett’s book.

As one review put it: “There are two sides to the biggest environmental lawsuit ever, but a new book tells only one of them.”

Once the appeal is decided and Kaplan is overturned I look forward to returning to the blog to see the photos of Barrett with egg on his face.