Ok so I did some digging and reading on this, here is what I have for hn. Apologies if I've made any transcription mistakes.

This is a very questionable article source to use for such an important matter. The author (Scarlett Evans) apparently almost exclusively publishes pieces in industry specific papers of a seemingly little informational value or at least it seems like just rewriting stuff others have done [1], with a theme of being pro-industry in almost all cases. There are quite a few better articles floating around by more serious journalists/outlets with crucial details that this website seems to leave out on purpose. [see refs]

While the offshore technology article basically leaves it there, in other interviews he has given and other articles, the details are explained further:

a) "He faces up to six months in prison after having already spent an unprecedented 787 days, by the day of his sentencing, on house arrest. Federal courts have never before ordered the pretrial detention of a lawyer without a criminal record for a misdemeanor charge." [6]

b) The contempt of court sentence stems from this: "As part of a civil RICO trial, Chevron demanded and was granted sweeping access to Donzinger’s phone and computer. Donzinger appealed this ruling, arguing that it would give Chevron access to information protected by attorney-client privilege. Donzinger stated he would only turn over his phone and computer if the order was upheld on appeal. While appealing the decision, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan brought six counts of criminal contempt against Donzinger." [7] Donziger claims [8] that the contempt charge was unprecedented; "no lawyer has even been charged with contempt of court for appealing an order".

c) The order, if not the contempt of court sentence, would make more sense if the surface level story used to justify the order was more credible. The claim the countersuit was based on and hence the order was that he had been withholding information and bribing a judge, to which Donziger responds "they basically framed me, they paid a witness 2 million dollars, Alberto Guerra, he was coached for 53 days by their lawyers, he came into Kaplan's court, Kaplan denied me a jury, and he claimed that he was in some meeting where I offered a bribe to the trial judge in Ecuador. Totally false, [it's] been rejected by 28 appelate judges in Ecuador and Canada." [8] edit: as others have cited, Guerra has later openly admitted falsification of his testimony.

d) Furthermore, Donziger claims the judge himself likely has conflicts of interest that make him a non-neutral party, and that his conduct was unconstitutional.

"Even more bizaare, by law Kaplan had to take his charges to the US Attorneys office, the regular federal prosecutor here in Manhattan, known as the SDNY, a famous office. They turned down the case. They declined to prosecute me, certainly concluding the charges were baseless." Of course he can't know that, so in more recent interviews he has not added this but I'm including it since it's in the video I was transcribing... He continues, "So Kaplan, rather than just stop there, appointed a private law firm to prosecute me in the name of the government. He hid the fact that this law firm, called Seward & Kissel, had Chevron as a client, as well as many other major oil and gas companies. So I was being prosecuted, not by the US Government, but by a private law firm, that worked for Chevron, essentially Chevron. So when I say it's the first corporate prosecution that's what I mean." [8] When I compared his statement to others, it seems the main defense is that Chevron is now a former client of the lawfirm; "Kaplan tapped attorneys the private law firm Seward & Kissel—which counted Chevron as a former client—to prosecute Donziger before assigning the case to his colleague, Senior U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska. Neither the civil nor the criminal trial faced a jury, over Donziger’s objections. ... Now represented by University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck, Donziger’s appeal attacks the constitutionality of Judge Kaplan’s appointment of a private prosecutor after the U.S. Attorney’s office declined his case." [9]

For those curious as I was, I found a video where he explains how he was denied a jury trial. Apparently there has been an exception created where if a judge agrees to limit a sentence to 6 months or less, the judge can deny a jury trial and try the case themselves.

Donziger goes on the say that the newly appointed judge by Kaplan, Loretta Preska, may have her own potential conflicts of interest. "She's a member of the Federalist Society, to which Chevron is one of the major donors." [8]

When asked recently what he wanted done, after complaining about the ability to hold lifetime appointed judges accountable, he asked that people contact their congressperson and Merrick Garland and demand that the prosecution be taken over by the DoJ and that he should be released, saying "I'm probably the only lawyer in US history essentially begging the DoJ to prosecute me." [11]

He warns "This is a playbook Jimmy, I mean I think Chevron and the other big fossil fuel majors are gonna use this playbook if they can get away with it with me they are going to use it against other activists." [12]

In discussion with Chris Hedges, he said "I'm the only person in the history of the state of New York, disbarred without a hearing. Based on findings in a civil case. In other words, Kaplan's findings, based on this false witness testimony, were used to disbar me and ... the bar grievance process ruled I had no right to challenge Kaplans findings, they applied whats called the doctrine of collateral stoppal, which is crazy. ... Thats a doctrine that means you can't relitigate issues already decided, but Kaplan didn't decide the case, the Ecuador court did. So you have this bizaare situation where you have 28 judges in Ecuador and Canada who validated the Ecuador judgement. Kaplan claimed it was a fraud based on false witness testimony, yet it's Kaplans findings that the bar used to disbar me without a hearing, I mean it's disgusting. ... There is a long history by the way in the United States of using the bar disciplinary process for political purposes to attack progressive lawyers or laywers who challenge the status quo. I mean this has happened to lawyers who represented Vietnam protestors, or lawyers who represented people charged in the red scare in the 1950's were drummed out of the bar constantly, it's controlled by the big corporate law firms... Isn't it ironic Chris that I lost my license, the Chevron lawyers who made up evidence to frame me are still practicing, you know I'm going to jail, the Chevron executives who made the decision to pollute Ecuador resulting in the deaths of thousands of people and the decimation of indigenous groups. They live with impunity. I held them accountable and I'm going to prison, I mean go figure."

Sidenote: I found an interesting side story about the lack of coverage of the story by the larger journalistic publications referenced a few times, enough that I think it warrants being brought up. "First I've gotten a lot of play in the independent media and I want to salute all the journalists including you Jimmy who have had me on and written about this; The Nation, The Intercept, Chris Hedges, Robert Scheer, Will Menaker, ... Katie Halper, I'm missing many but it's just been really amazing. Now, having said that, big media has totally ignored the story. I mean I have journalists flying over from Germany 4000 miles to sit in my living room, and the New York Times headquarters is a 30 minute walk from my apartement and they won't even come talk to me. Now I later found out that one of Chevrons lead lawyers targetting me, Ted Boutrous Jr., [I found that he also is a member of the Federalist society] who has literally made millions and millions of dollars from Chevron for his work in trying to lock me up and demonize me, um, also represents the New York Times, and I think frankly the Gibson Dunn lawfirm where Boutrous works, Chevrons main lawfirm that's attacking me, New York Times is a major client, [a] total conflict of interest. We've called on the NYT to file Gibson Dunn and Boutrous, but I think that goes a long way explaining why they haven't covered the story. Now, neither has any of the networks. I mean I did an interview with ABC news, they were preparing a story for their website, suddenly the guy just dissapears and stopped answering my phone calls. So I think the fact Chevron is a major advertiser has a lot of power, and these corporate media outlets are so dependent now on the fossil fuel industry for advertising, and I might say deceptive advertising ... that has a lot to do with why the big media is ignoring the story." [8]

1. https://muckrack.com/scarlett-evans/articles

2. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/oct/01/steven-donzi...

3. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/28/chevron-lawy...

4. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/business/energy-environme...

5. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/business/federal-judge-ru...

6. https://theintercept.com/2021/09/29/steven-donziger-sentenci...

7. https://www.rightsanddissent.org/news/human-rights-lawyer-st...

8. https://youtu.be/R6kMtNjoR28?t=250

9. https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/anti-chevron-crusader-s...

10. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2K3ypt3VFc

11. https://youtu.be/LKbpptFKaXc?t=378

12. https://youtu.be/LKbpptFKaXc?t=848