<?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: Second Chance for Steven Donziger	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/20/lago-agrio-second-chance-for-steven-donziger/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/20/lago-agrio-second-chance-for-steven-donziger/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:03:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Lago Agrio: New York Appellate Court Reverses Referee&#8217;s Decision on Collateral Estoppel &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/20/lago-agrio-second-chance-for-steven-donziger/#comment-3208</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lago Agrio: New York Appellate Court Reverses Referee&#8217;s Decision on Collateral Estoppel &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:03:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27728#comment-3208</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Back in November I noted a decision in the disciplinary case against Steven Donziger: the referee who was to decide the sanction Donziger will face had ruled that although Judge Kaplan&#8217;s findings of fact had had preclusive effect with respect to the question whether Donziger had violated the rules of professional conduct, the findings should not have preclusive effect with respect to the sanction. In other words, Donziger should be entitled to put on evidence to prove that Judge Kaplan&#8217;s findings were wrong at the hearing to be held on his sanction. [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Back in November I noted a decision in the disciplinary case against Steven Donziger: the referee who was to decide the sanction Donziger will face had ruled that although Judge Kaplan&#8217;s findings of fact had had preclusive effect with respect to the question whether Donziger had violated the rules of professional conduct, the findings should not have preclusive effect with respect to the sanction. In other words, Donziger should be entitled to put on evidence to prove that Judge Kaplan&#8217;s findings were wrong at the hearing to be held on his sanction. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Lago Agrio: Evidentiary Hearing Stayed &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2018/11/20/lago-agrio-second-chance-for-steven-donziger/#comment-3207</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lago Agrio: Evidentiary Hearing Stayed &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2018 11:01:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://lettersblogatory.com/?p=27728#comment-3207</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] week or two ago I noted an upcoming attorney disciplinary hearing at which, it seemed, Steven Donziger would have the [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] week or two ago I noted an upcoming attorney disciplinary hearing at which, it seemed, Steven Donziger would have the [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
