File this one under "Too good to be true"

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:54 pm

You just know that Exxon will buy whomever they need to get this ruling overturned. No way the Corporate State is going to allow this kind of pro human rights verdict to stand.

JAKARTA, Indonesia - Exxon Mobil Corp. said Thursday it would appeal the ruling by a U.S. judge to allow villagers to sue the oil giant for alleged abuses by Indonesian troops at facilities it operated in Aceh province.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060309/ap_ ... on_torture

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:24 pm

mvscal wrote:I would file it under, "Another America Hating Commie Dumbfuck Flapping His Dicksuckers".

If you knew what the fuck you were talking about you wouldn't.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:06 pm

mvscal wrote:I do. You don't. This isn't a new theme. The idea that Exxon is responsible for the behavior of the Indonesian military is idiotic.

Exxon hired the Indonesian millitary to guard their facilities. Are you saying they should not be liable for the behavior of people in their employ?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:08 pm

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Exxon hired the Indonesian millitary to guard their facilities. Are you saying they should not be liable for the behavior of people in their employ?
They aren't employees, you fucking twit.

Exxon paid them, they took the money. Furthermore, the abuse happened on Exxon property. What color is the sky in your world?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:17 pm

BSmack wrote: Exxon paid them, they took the money.

In US contract law, this would be along the lines of a contractor/subcontractor relationship. A subcontractor is responsible for its actions and liabilities, and the contractor is responsible for overseeing all subcontractors. They are both legally bound to mitigate any damages that occur, as quickly as completely as possible.

They're both liable under American law. If citizens of Indonesia are unable to sue the military for damages (this issue is within Indonesian law, and is beyond US control), they are certaily under their rights (under American law) to collect damages from the general contractor, in this case Exxon.

No-brainer court ruling. They can appeal it a million times, and it's still a no-brainer.

Anyone who thinks this case has any chance of winning appeal either has some insight into corruption in the Justice Department, or has no fucking idea how contract law works.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:18 pm

mvscal wrote:So, if Exxon ordered those troops to depose the Indonesian leadership, they would obey that order?

Absolutely moot.

Keep swinging and missing, though. It's kinda funny.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:41 pm

This isn't going well for you mvscal, due to yopur lack of knowledge of American contract law, and taking snippets of the article out of context isn't going to help you.

I noticed that wehn you quoted that article, you conveniently left out this part:

The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs or their family members were victims of abuses "including murder, torture, sexual violence and kidnapping" carried out by Indonesian soldiers hired by Exxon Mobil to guard its facilities.

Now, are you having a "bad comprehension day," and need for me to explain that in simpler terms, or do you understand what that means?

Further, you left of another very significant quote:

The Indonesian army is widely feared in the region because of atrocities carried out in the past three decades, which have been documented in the State Department's own annual human rights reports.

The evidence without this is damning enough to make it a no-brainer, but since Exxon had prior knowledge that this was a likely possibility , or they at least should have if they were doing reasonable (important legal word here) assesments of possible damages that could have been incurred, it becomes a double-no-brainer.

As much as you like to lap-dog for Amewrican mega-corporations, Exxon doesn't have a legal leg to stand on. Period. Overwhelming evidence of their guilt, and I'm sure there was plenty more at trial that didn't appear in the article.

Legally, the onus of safety is ALWAYS on the contractor, beyond that of personal responsibilties (inapplicable most likely in this case -- I'm sure the villagers did everything in their power to avoid physical abuse) and all of its subs on down the line.

What did it take for the judge to reach that decision -- about 5 minutes?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:58 pm

Bro, I asked if you needed me to explain the quote to you:

The lawsuit claims the plaintiffs or their family members were victims of abuses "including murder, torture, sexual violence and kidnapping" carried out by Indonesian soldiers hired by Exxon Mobil to guard its facilities.

I would have gladly helped you out, had I known you were struggling with it.

Regardless whether they were hired as employees or subcontractors, Exxon is responsible for mitigating any damages caused by those in their employ. Not only did they not, even though they were aware of the risks, but they facilitated the damages by providing the location in which the damages occurred. Their facilities, the legal onus was on them to be aware of what w2as going in in their facilities, by the people under their employ.

Argue this all you like, but you're wrong. And if you knew anything about contract/labor law, you wouldn't even be debating this. Exxon fucked up BIG, and now it's time to pay. Sorry if you bought stock in Exxon, but that's how the law works...and oddly enough, THAT'S WHY THE JUDGE RULED THE WAY HE DID.

So, in summary, myself and a US judge see this as a very basic application of American contract law, but mvscal and Exxon see it otherwise. Hmmmm.....

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:04 pm

mvscal wrote:The Indonesian military is not in the employ of Exxon and I really couldn't care less what a senile Jimmy Carter appointee has to say about it.

They are when Exxon hires them to provide security. That's like the Rolling Stones saying they don't employ the Hell's Angels.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:19 pm

Let me help you out more, mvscal, as far as this messageboard thingy goes --

When you don't know what you're talking about, and other people like US judges and people who write contracts professionally do, it's best to remain silent and just let us assume you're an idiot. No need to confirm it.

At the bottom line, there's two issues at hand here -- First, US contract/labor law. Second is mvscal's opinion of how he THINKS US contract/labor law should read.

One is concrete. One is meaningless, except in as much as he can influence his representatives.

Here's another example that you conveniently left out, as well:

Acehnese villagers accusing Exxon's Indonesian subsidiary of allowing its facilities to be used by soldiers to torture and rape locals.

Obviously, they proved this upon preponderance of evidence (and they must have done it pretty effectively, what with being some whackjob lawyers against Exxon's legal team). Not only did Exxon fail to mitigate damages, they facilitated them.

Seriously dude, what part of this aren't you understanding? The troops were HIRED BY EXXON. They were being paid to gaurd Exxon's facilities. Exxon did not do what is required of either an employer or a contractor hiring subcontractors, which regardless of how the money changed hands, is EXACTLY what the Indonesian troops were, by legal definition. American law requires that a person or entity in Exxon's position perform basic requirements as part of their contract, and they very clearly didn't.

End of story (pending an appeal, which Exxon will lose in a landslide). Hence, the judge's ruling...or have you forgotten to check the scoreboard? Trust me, the judge knows a lot more about American contract law...and so do I...obviously. After damages occur, you can't just say "that wasn't my problem" and call it good -- that's not the way it works, thank goodness. Doesn't matter WHO they hired, be it another government's military or a bunch of redneck hacks -- you don't get to make up your own set of labor laws, and after entering into a legal contract, you don't get to change the rules after-the-fact.

HENCE, THE RULING. Did I mention that this was easily a no-brainer for the judge?

Cuda · Post by **Cuda** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:41 pm

BSmack wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:Exxon hired the Indonesian millitary to guard their facilities. Are you saying they should not be liable for the behavior of people in their employ?
They aren't employees, you fucking twit.
Exxon paid them, they took the money. Furthermore, the abuse happened on Exxon property.

Whatever happened on Exxon's property, it didn't happen in the USA. The proper venue for anybody to sue is Indonesia, not here.

What color is the sky in your world?

RACK!

-sin,
1997

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:48 pm

mvscal wrote: There is no chance in hell of losing this appeal.

Oh?

So, what new evidence are you aware of that the rest of us aren't?

Do you realize how fucking stupid you appear when you post idiotic shit like this? Your affinty for having the "inside scoop" on government and corporations makes you look like Zyclone on meth.

So, what part of contract/labor law are you proposing that Exxon's lawyers forgot that is suddenly going to be brought to the table this time?

And do you even realize how fucking stupid you look for basically implying that Exxon's legal staff forgot something? I mean, think about that -- "well, they got slaughtered at trial, but I'm quite confident that they will be absolved upon appeal."

OK, mvscal -- time to put up or shut up -- What laws, in your VAST knowledge of contract/labor law, are going to get this decision reversed?

Come on -- out with it.

Do tell, oh wise one -- what grounds is this going to be overturned under?

Yeah, that's whhat I thought.

Exxon had a legal responsibilty to mitigate damages. They were clearly aware of the dangers their hiring choices posed or they should have been if they had acted responsibly, yet not only did they not mitigate those damages, they facilitated them.

I'll explain how a contract/labor dispute works(and any help from the real lawyers is appreciated):

Was there damages?

Was the principal aware of risk posed by the work situation or lacation or subcontractors/employees?

Did the principal and its hires do all they could to mitigate the damages?

Yes, there were damages.

Yes, Exxon was aware of the risks that using Indonesian military with a bad track-record posed, or they should have been if they were exhibiting reasonable caution.

No, Exxon made no attempt to mitigate the damages, and beyond that, even facilitated the damages.

ABSOLUTE no-brainer breach of contract. A "major" breach, for that matter, due to the lack of mitigation. When a major breach occurs, it's usually pretty self-evident. As it was in this case.

Sorry if YOU don't like it, but that's the way the law works, regardless how badly YOU want for things to be done YOUR way.

Of course, unless you're willing to cite those statutes that absolve a principal from liability when they fail to mitigate and even facilitate a breach...we'll be waiting...

Goooooood luck with that, Perry Masonscal.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:03 pm

Cuda wrote:Whatever happened on Exxon's property, it didn't happen in the USA. The proper venue for anybody to sue is Indonesia, not here.

See, now THIS is an issue that is relevant. I'm guessing that with Exxon's crack legal team, the law provides for this action on American soil, or the case never would have made it to trial. If a trial can't be legally held in the first place, then it doesn't get held. But at least you brought up something relevant, rather than mvscal, whose only arguments are based uopn his ignorance of the law.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:40 pm

Cuda wrote:
BSmack wrote:Exxon paid them, they took the money. Furthermore, the abuse happened on Exxon property.
Whatever happened on Exxon's property, it didn't happen in the USA. The proper venue for anybody to sue is Indonesia, not here.

Exxon is an American corporation right? Last I checked, the decision making at Exxon happened here in the good ol USA.

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:56 pm

mvscal wrote:OSeriously, you know don't know shit about the law or this case.

As I sit here and type a legally-binding contract?

A quick review of this thread will clearly show that you've made yet another ignorant, arrogant statement.

Your dedication to ignorance is staggering. Not only did you get called for your ignorance towards contract law, I was even kind enough to explain the basic workings of it, to no avail.

What the hell, I'll try one more time --

Was there damages?

Was the principal aware of risk posed by the work situation or lacation or subcontractors/employees?

Did the principal and its hires do all they could to mitigate the damages?

Yes, there were damages.

Yes, Exxon was aware of the risks that using Indonesian military with a bad track-record posed, or they should have been if they were exhibiting reasonable caution.

No, Exxon made no attempt to mitigate the damages, and beyond that, even facilitated the damages.

In a very basic nutshell that your pea-brain can understand, those are the basics of a contractual dispute. A major breach was committed, and the principal was held liable...bottom line. From the evidence mentioned in the article, which granted is vague, it's a no-brainer. The only legal dispute, on the surface, would be Cuda's point, and I'm quite certain that if there were no provisions for such a suit, Exxon's legal staff would have made motions to that effect, and won. So, from this I assume that Cuda's point, while a vilid question, didn't apply here.

But of course, if you have some evidence that wasn't mentioned here, or know some tenets of contract/labor law that the judge and Exxon's legal staff didn't know about, then by all means, do tell...

Other than that, it seems a pretty open/shut case. Damages arose as a result of Exxon's labor agreement, those damages weren't mitigated(HUGE word in contractual disputes), and the damages were in fact faciltated by the principal. The end result is that Exxon is responsible, as they should be. If a company hires what amounts to armed thugs to provide security, it was reasonable for them to expect that such damages were likely to occur, and those damages did in fact occur in Exxon's facilities. There's a reasonable expectation that Exxon would ensure security for their facility and it's surroundings, and they failed, through negligence, to ensure that security. Open and shut. That's how the law works, regardless how you feel about it.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:23 am

I'd say that mvsidiot has done an excellant job of plungering his own ass, but at this point it's looking more like a plumbing snake at this point.

Gunslinger · Post by **Gunslinger** » Sat Mar 11, 2006 1:51 am

mvscal wrote:The fact that you are happily cheering damage to an American corporation underscores the fact that you are a complete imbecile as well as treasonous pile of shit.

Aren't you the same annual contribution rate of $10 to the GDP dumbfuck, that just yesterday, was begging for Bush to allow you to suck off a dictatorship lead corporation (sure its a corporation) to run our ports?

Get back to selling your cars, bitch.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:08 pm

Mscval, in the process of being pounded like a (pick one: abalone, baby seal, steak tar tar) offers...THIS?:

"So, if Exxon ordered those troops to depose the Indonesian leadership, they would obey that order?"

Gee, bab's if you just substitute for "Exxon" any number of American conglomerates over the years--like ITT, United Fruit, among others--and for "Indonesia" substitute various countries like Chile, Guatamala, Iran, Iraq, Honduras, Dominican, well, you'd have a pretty clear picture of America's real foreign policy over the years.

No need to state the obvious, but once again you've made some terse, snotty assertion and then provided absolutely NOTHING to back it up. How typical.

Diego in Seattle · Post by **Diego in Seattle** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:14 am

While the villagers will probably win the case, collecting the money from Exxon will probably be a lot harder.

Sincerely,
Alaska