"Judge: Chevron can access its critics' private user information"

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by philnotfil, Jul 12, 2013.

  1. philnotfil
    Offline

    philnotfil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    12,921
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +857
    This doesn't seem constitutional. I hope that the people involved have the time and money to get this to the SCOTUS.

    earthrights.org

  2. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,870
    Likes Received:
    2,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,901
    No non-Americans (foreigners) should have Constitutional protection.
  3. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,194
    Likes Received:
    2,700
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +8,461
    Why?

    Also, the assumption made by the judge is unprecedented (if the article is correct) and clearly erroneous for probably most of the account holders.
  4. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,870
    Likes Received:
    2,822
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,901
    Does any foreign country give American citizens their Constitutional rights in their country?

    Then, why should their people have our protections and rights?
  5. philnotfil
    Offline

    philnotfil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    12,921
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +857
    I'm not aware of any court in the US which has ruled that the constitution only applies to citizens, but even if that were true, isn't it problematic that the people in this case were assumed to be non-citizens without any evidence either way being provided?
  6. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,561
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,096
    Not familiar with this, but a couple of tidbits turned up:

    - The pollution took place from 1964 to 1992 by Texaco (Chevron acquired Texaco in 2002).
    - (from Wiki) "In 1995, amid litigation, Texaco agreed to clean a number of waste pits in proportion to its interest in the consortium, at a cost of $40 million. In exchange, the Ecuadorian government released Texaco from further liability. Chevron has used this agreement as its primary defense against the ongoing legal claims, although numerous sources show the remediation efforts to have been largely cosmetic."
    - from same wiki: "In August 2009 a video surfaced showing an alleged member of Ecuador's ruling party, Alianza PAIS, bribing Judge Juan Núñez, who is the presiding judge in the case.[15] In the video,[16] the judge agreed to rule against Chevron, to deny Chevron's appeals, and also discusses the allocation of the $3 million bribe between himself, the president, and the plaintiffs. The video also shows discussion regarding the awarding of remediation contracts that would result from a ruling against Chevron. The judge was forced to resign.[2] Chevron claims it had no involvement in the videotaping, however in April 2010 it was found that one of the men involved in the filming was a long-time Chevron contractor, who in turn was later caught on hidden camera saying he "has enough evidence to ensure a victory by the Amazon communities if Chevron failed to pay him what he was promised". This man was later relocated to the United States with his family at Chevron's expense, where he is also receiving an undisclosed amount of living expenses. The other man involved in filming the video is a convicted drug smuggler."

    What happened between then and now to get that number from 40 million to 18 billion?

    I'm not sure of the legal nuances, but this sure looks like a money grab on the part of the activists.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  7. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,561
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,096
    You can read the ruling here.

    Don't people have the right to face their accusers? I would imagine some of the information requested may not be necessary, but that could be broken down more specifically. They're not asking for any email content information. Does the rest of it qualify as protected information in some capacity?

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  8. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,194
    Likes Received:
    2,700
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +8,461
    I don't know what foreign countries afford similar rights to Americans as their own citizens. I could well be mistaken, but I would expect similar treatment in most western countries, to what they afford their own citizens.

    Aside from what other countries do, I think that if we truly believe in rights, then we should believe in them and protect them consistently... short of some truly compelling reason not to.

    But I could see a very good argument for reciprocal protection of rights. That should help with our treatment in other countries. Couldn't hurt.

    Perhaps a bigger question is why the judge would assume that customers of a major U.S. company are not U.S. citizens. That is a bizarre judgment on its face.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,177
    Kaplan is the same judge from the FISA court, no?
  10. WESGATORS
    Offline

    WESGATORS Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    21,561
    Likes Received:
    306
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,096
    After reading the ruling, this looks like a false dramatization on the part of earthrights.org.

    It is not about not being citizens, it is about "acting outside the borders, jurisdiction, and control of the United States" that is not falling within "the interests protected by the First Amendment."

    Not sure how anybody could have a problem with that.

    Go GATORS!
    ,WESGATORS
  11. OaktownGator
    Offline

    OaktownGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    27,194
    Likes Received:
    2,700
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +8,461
    This subpoena is still acquiring all of their communications for several years, regardless of where they were located right?

    And this is justified/rationalized because the actors involved traveled outside the USA for some period of time?

    Am I misunderstanding?

Share This Page