Thanks for the bold prediction, George! We will see.

As for the the Ecuadorean judge Zambrano who supposedly wrote the decision. His credibility was absolutely shredded. For the case of his lifetime, he could not even quote the most basic of facts attributed to his decision made his testimony a disaster. That does not preclude the other jurist did not lie. But in weighing both testimonies, you have to point to the overwhelming conduct of Donziger and then question which testimony has the best chance of being credible. And its an easy conclusion here. Ghost written expert reports and a judge who cannot even explain the most mundane of details quoted in his landmark decision. So I disagree with you on this point. The only matter here is do you believe Zambrano wrote the decision and that he was not improperly influenced by Donziger. For me the facts are beyond just compelling. They are fairly conclusive for me.

The courts will not over look Donzigers misconduct and all of those other American firms who associated with him in perpetrating this fraud. They’ll affirm the decision and probably retain RICO. Or they will remand and give the judge a hint as to how they want it framed to maintain the gist of his decision, which is Donziger and his clients will not be able to collect on this judgement in the United States.

Take a chance, Doug! This exercise is, as they say, for entertainment value only, and don’t think anyone will hold you to your prediction.

I’ve done this once before: I correctly predicted the outcome of the other major litigation I’ve followed closely, the Boston College case here in Massachusetts, though that was a much simpler and, to my mind anyway, easier case.

Interesting speculation. My own experience in decades of litigation, domestic and international, vindicates the wisdom of Yogi Berra, who reportedly advised, “Making predictions is hard, especially about the future.” So, for my part, I will refrain from predicting the Second Circuit decision until it is past.

That said, you seem to buy the argument that the Ecuadorian appellate courts were untainted by the lower court ruling. I don’t. Not for a second. On that point, if you have not read the amicus brief filed by Keith Rosenn et al., I commend it to you.