But what I was really trying to get at is that, just because one side in a dispute has behaved badly, it does not necessarily follow that the other side has behaved well. Surely in the hours you spent studying the case you must have noticed instances whereby Chevron behave like the typical corporate bully. From trashing the region in the first place, to using their deep pockets to litigate in an abusive manner (dragging out the process with all manner of gamesmanship, using their influence to try to derail the whole trial etc, etc ). It’s all been well documented, and not really disputed.

In fact the Canadian jurisdiction issue in which you claim to differ with Chevron is a side show at best, and really just another example of the corporation dragging out proceedings. By appealing there is a chance they could prevail, but if not, they buy themselves another year. It’s win – win.

I don’t know what you have been involved with aside from this case, but I am sure you did not become a professor of law without doing some excellent work to further the cause of human rights. In that context for Chevron to have you on their side must be a real bonus, so I see what’s in it for them. But they don’t strike me as a client a human rights lawyer would want to be associated with, and your association certainly appears to have impacted badly on the rights of the people of Ecuador.

Good questions. As a lawyer, I generally do not express public views on particular cases when I am not familiar with the facts. The only Chevron case I have looked into—which took many, many hours—is the Lago Agrio case. Given what I found there, I would want to take a long hard look at any other Chevron case before reaching or expressing a view, one way or the other. I do not recall ever making any public statements on any other case involving Chevron. Nor have I had any involvement with any other case involving Chevron. So when Ted refers to me as “Chevron advocate,” I assume he means in the context of the Lago Agrio case.

Why, then, do I support Chevron “so staunchly” in the Lago Agrio case? First of all, I do not support the company on every issue in that case. My current post on the Canadian Supreme Court decision—in which I support the Court’s unanimous jurisdictional ruling against Chevron—is only the latest Lago Agrio issue on which I disagree with the company.

Where I do support Chevron—and, yes, staunchly—is on what I find to be the overwhelming evidence of pervasive misconduct by some of plaintiffs’ lawyers and by some Ecuadorian judicial officials that renders the Ecuadorian judgment against Chevron unworthy of credence.

I view the fraudulent conduct of the Lago Agrio litigation as an important issue for three main reasons. First, on principle, human rights lawyers should live up to standards of fair trial and due process. Second, when we fail to do so, we undermine the moral credibility of the human rights movement, weakening its effectiveness in efforts to assist victims across the board. And third, human rights advocates (myself included) have worked for decades to persuade business to take seriously its human rights responsibilities. If business comes to view human rights lawyers as little more than shakedown artists—the way Chevron and other business people rightly view some of the Lago Agrio lawyers—we can hardly expect business to take us seriously.

I was of course merely quoting the Canadian Supreme Court’s reference to a stay, and I frankly don’t know what they had in mind. Without going back and reviewing the lower court decisions and the briefs, I would hesitate to express a view.

Evidently Mr. Page does not read Chevron’s “talking points” with close attention. Does he suppose that the company supports the Canadian Supreme Court’s ruling? As my post does? When I agree with Chevron—on the fraud issue—I say so. When I don’t—on the Canadian Supreme Court ruling—I say so.