Chevron defeats the Greens with their own hubris

While this result is a good one for truth and honesty, is there going to be any follow up prosecutions for fraudulent behaviour that Green groups exhibited during this case?
If the follow up does not happen then they will try again against someone else and hope their bullying is not challenged. Pain is the most effective deterrent. The more pain, the more effective the deterrent.

Amen to this. Green is garbage.

From Wall Street Journal…

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan on Monday found that New York lawyer Steven Donziger and his litigation team engaged in coercion, bribery, money laundering and other criminal conduct in their effort to obtain a multibillion dollar pollution judgment in Ecuador against Chevron Corp.

Would it be naive to expect that a federal indictment might be appropriately forthcoming?

What is even better is they may also be taking down the law firm of Patton Boggs who lobbys for international customers. (I have another comment on the history of that firm)
Patton Boggs is the law firm that started the new improved lobbying industry in 1960s according to their website a decade ago.
Now they sy:

When Thomas Hale Boggs Jr. joined Patton Boggs, the year was 1966, Lyndon B. Johnson was president, and there were — by Boggs’s estimate — fewer than 100 people in Washington who called themselves lobbyists. The firm was a fledgling five-man operation trying to make its mark in lobbying, which at the time was considered an up-and-coming practice area. ¶A lot has changed. Today, Patton Boggs is the most lucrative lobby shop in Washington, and one of the most recognizable brands on K Street. The firm, which turns 50 this year, has about 550 lawyers, including 120 lobbyists….
At the time, small boutique lobbying firms were the industry standard, and they were mostly led by former heads of federal agencies who became lobbyists after leaving the government. Boggs and Patton envisioned a different kind of lobbying operation — one that was integrated into a major law firm, staffed with attorneys well-versed in the areas of law that lobbyists were looking to change.
“Tom saw the niche no one else saw — of substantive law combined with lobbying,” said the firm’s managing partner Ed Newberry. “So when a Patton Boggs lawyer went to the Hill to talk to the staff director, who was a well-trained lawyer, they were talking to them as a well-trained lawyer, not as a lobbyist who said, ‘Come on, do me a favor.’ ”
The formula served them well….
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/patton-boggs-moves-to-reinvent-itself/2012/10/14/c8e26278-13eb-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html

I really hope Delingpole is correct and these parasites crash and burn.

But this is standard operating procedure for our environmentally concerned citizens, basically they extort all development and any developer they can put the arm on.
It is not just the Ecuadorian government that is corrupt.
So many of our municipal and provincial governments have passed laws enabling this kind of shakedown.
Our Kleptocrats applaud this behaviour as “environmentally responsible”.

courages
Might that be courageous?
[Fixed, thanks. ~mod.]

After following some of Delingpole’s links, what appalled me was finding out that there are now “investment funds” who specialize in “litigation finance”. The one that bankrolled this case (in addition to the law firms) is Burford Capital.

We provide financing in the areas of litigation and arbitration. Our goal is to “unlock” the value of the underlying claims to benefit our clients. We can fund a case, finance operating expenses, monetize a judgment, and more.

Also, I saw (as I’m sure others here did) lots of parallels with Climategate.
One aspect of the Chevron case, the judge’s decision being ghostwritten for him by the plaintiff, particularly reminded me of this email:

I expect that you have already been made aware of the petition to EPA from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (and Pat Michaels) calling for a re-opening of public comment on EPA’s prospective “endangerment” finding on greenhouse gases. CEI is charging that the CRU at East Anglia has destroyed the raw data for a portion of the global temperature record, thus destroying the integrity of the IPCC assessments and any other work that treats the UK Jones-Wigley global temperature data record as scientifically legitimate.
[…]
Who is responding to this charge on behalf of the science community? Surely someone will have to, if only because EPA will need to know exactly what to say.

How on earth has there not been an Ethics Complaint submitted to disbar any American attorney involved in this debacle? Surely the federal judge has an obligation to submit it