The attacks on defenders I was referring to re the Chevron case are laid out in the letter in the original post—collateral litigation shifting attention from the massive contamination that every day affects tens of thousands of Ecuadorians to what’s in Donziger’s diary, or what this two-bit corrupt judge we just paid a half million bucks is now saying. Misdirection, plain and simple. Any sort of intrinsic/extrinsic rule about attacks that are part of the case versus not part of the case would immediately be maneuvered around and exploited—Chevron, case in point.

No, I don’t mean “intrinsic” in any technical sense. I just mean that Chevron is attacking the LAPs and their advocates for things that happened in the course of the lawsuit rather than, for example, something unrelated to it, which is what I thought you were getting at with your point about misdirection. I had in mind, say, attacking a human rights defender in the press with a claim of plagiarism or adultery as a way of attacking the person for something other than his or her work on the case at hand.

The “breezing past” was in just in the post itself, which was admittedly brief. But the Chev attacks are certainly relevant to the defender question, so it seems should have been part of the analysis there.

By “intrinsic” do you mean in the technical sense, intrinsic/extrinsic? That’s actually the point I am making but it cuts the other way. The Ec courts fully assessed the Cabrera allegations. If by “intrinsic” you just mean central or important — well, no, my exact argument is that Cabrera is not “intrinsic” at all in that sense. As for “bribery” — maybe — but it’s now clear beyond any doubt that Chevron made that one up whole cloth.

First, on “looking askance” at the letter. I wasn’t writing about my own reaction, but what I take to be the reaction of some in the human rights field, e.g., the folks at the Harvard event discussed in a prior post.

Second, the point about misdirection may be right in general, but I do not see its application to this case, because the supposed misconduct Chevron cites was intrinsic to the case the “human rights defenders” were prosecuting.

Third, I think I’ve criticized Chevron on witness-paying and other points pretty intensely. So I wouldn’t say I was “breezing past” these issues. There’s plenty of blame on all sides to go around.

Last, I have previously agreed with you about the legal effect of the Cabrera fraud in light of the appellate procedure in Ecuador.