Exxon: Pouring Oil on Trouble Waters -- Part 5

December 19, 2008
Exxon: Pouring Oil on Troubled Waters -- Part 5
-AKA -
"Billions for Defense; Not One Penny to Pay Our Just Debts"

"The day" finally came.

The day we were going to find out if the Supreme Court was going to hammer Exxon and "correct" the 9th Circuit for halving the jury's award of damages or if, somehow, they were going to find a way to ratify that decision. Or ... some folks who had learned pessimism by being a part (the "victim" part) of this 20 year fiasco, actually believed that the Supremes might reduce it further. Our attorneys, the best in the business, however, had assured us that couldn't happen. That there was no legitimate way for the Supreme Court to lower the award further. That was one option we were not to worry about.

We had several days of anticipation as Supreme Court decisions were handed out over a few day period and ours didn't happen on the first day. Or the second. In fact, it didn't happen until the day the Court was ready to leave [get out of Dodge] for the season.

It wasn't until July of 2008 that the Supreme Court handed down its decision. It made its determination and sent it back to the 9th Circuit for implementation.

[To the tune of American Pie, please:] "That was the day that justice died."

The United States Supreme Court ignored everyone the 9th Circuit had ignored ... jurors, a long-term highly respected judge, the Constitution and common law that it provides we are to follow, the State of Alaska, the earth's environment ... and all of the people who live below the waterline. And then it ignored the 9th Circuit also.
In an announcement that left the hardest of hard-bitten attorneys in numbed shock ... the court chopped the remaining $2.5 billion award down to $507.5 million.

There are no words. It is as manifestly unjust as anything I have ever witnessed the court system doing. It was not only legally wrong, but it was morally wrong. Indeed, it was the first time I have truly believed that the Courts have been so politically packed that they are now simply part of the corpocracy. They are not a check and balance. They are not an independent judiciary. They are bought and paid for politicians. And they have committed an act of overt evil.

Then, just because it could, Exxon took the plaintiffs and rubbed their faces in it one last time. They argued to the 9th Circuit that because the Supremes said that $507.5 million was all that could be awarded ... that meant they didn't have to pay the 20 years of interest on it either.

Plaintiffs and their attorneys were so defeated and destroyed that there was no fight left. We filed pro forma motions with the 9th Circuit explaining that, once again, Exxon was simply flatly wrong legally. But no one's heart is in it. And no one even seems to be able to care how the 9th rules. We are arguing over the pennies to place on our closed eyes after having lost fortunes. It really makes no difference.

For the tiny amounts that the Supremes said we could have; we settled with Exxon for 75% of them. I have no clue what leverage Exxon had left to deny paying the entire amount the Supremes said they had to. But they proved that the courts would do pretty much whatever the Big and Powerful asked for and there was no fight left in any of us. When the elephants play, the grass gets trampled. And we were all, ultimately, the grass.

So the checks are starting to arrive. Little tiny checks. People's lives and livelihoods had been ruined by Exxon beyond hope of repair or salvation. All they were left was the knowledge that at least Exxon was going to have to pay ... and pay enough that they could afford to retire (after 20 years of waiting and scraping and scrimping and taking new jobs at middle age for which they weren't trained, some still trying to eke out a living catching what fish they were allowed by Fish and Game as the Department tried to manage PWS to revive the fish stocks). Many people have been clinging with their fingernails so long to keep from the total financial collapse that just letting go and crashing and burning is better than continuing to try to hold on.

And now, the Courts have stolen their retirement also.

I used strong language above. I speak of the courts committing true evil and stealing from people. I believe that to be true. But I wish to make one point extremely clear here. Although I do believe what the courts did was wrong ... horribly, terribly, immorally wrong, and that the Exxons of the world have "bought" our courts and did prove that they can "buy" [what one might still euphemistically refer to as] "justice"... I do not believe that the individual justices were directly bribed nor do I have any suspicions or accusations about any particular justice or justices who personally "sold" their decision. I don't know what all other criteria the individual justices considered; or indeed, the courts in joint session considered. One may not want to know such things. If you wish to enjoy your meal, stay out of the kitchen! But, largely, although I think they were horrendously, clearly, and demonstratively wrong ... I believe it most likely that the justices believed their votes were "right" and that their decisions were made without substantive improper motivations.

I do not wish, with this series of articles, to accuse either the justices of the 9th Circuit or of the U.S. Supreme court of malfeasance or improper abuse of office.

The Supremes do suffer from institutionalized arrogance. Because they have "the last word" ... ie: there is no where to appeal their decisions. They are very proud of the quote that:

"We are not final because we are infallible; we are infallible because we are final".

These checks won't hurt. Some folks may manage to pay down a credit card bill or even buy a truck. But we ended up, after 20 years, with less than $500 million of the $5 billion that the judge and jury had said was legally ours. Justice delayed is justice denied. Especially when after two decades of injustice, the courts put the decimal point in the wrong place and overtly deny it as well.

The plaintiff attorneys are brilliant people who are at the top of their game. They had secured one of the greatest of all time verdicts for one of the most deserving groups of victims. This isn't tobacco legislation where people got sick and died because they decided to smoke. This isn't a McDonalds case where the plaintiff put a cup of scalding hot coffee between her legs and then squeezed.

The fishermen and other plaintiffs had done absolutely nothing wrong.

In this situation we had totally innocent plaintiffs, unlike almost all mega-award cases (which somehow seemed to survive this appeal process ... the tobacco companies for example virtually all decided to settle; they didn't have Exxon's "make war not peace; win at all costs and hurt the other side as much as is humanly or, more precisely, corporately possible" mentality).

The plaintiff attorneys had put their political lives and careers (as well as their reputations and financial futures) into this case and had defended it through the most violent of legal storms that could be unleashed by a behemoth that had vastly more money to throw at this than almost anyone in the world. If one could buy "justice", Exxon was going to do it.

In a con job worthy of anything Alice believed before breakfast Exxon tried to convince the world that they had done nothing wrong either! Although many (most?) news outlets were not easily flim-flammed, Exxon clearly has the power and influence even with the media to get its story out.

Exxon argued (argues) that Hazelwood, Captain; or God, An Act of; were the only reckless culpable parties. In English ... the only ones who did anything wrong. So that, therefore, only Hazelwood and God deserved any blame. And if Exxon didn't deserve any blame, they certainly didn't deserve any punishment.

It is important to understand that for legal purposes a corporation is an entity that is legally construed (for essentially all purposes) as a "person". I personally am not convinced of the wisdom of such exalted treatment to an entity that one can create on a piece of paper and the stamp of the appropriate state office in a few minutes, but it is a concept with much history and is well-settled law.

So Exxon, although a corporation, is legally capable of wrongdoing and being punished for such wrongdoing. To carry an analogy much farther than it should go, the Board of Directors, officers and executives are the "brain" of the corporation which sometimes cause it to do things that it shouldn't; much like our brains do with us. So it is the corporation itself, not its officers nor directors, that was found liable for causing damages by its negligent behavior and was assessed punitive damages for its reckless behavior. [Captain Hazelwood was also found liable of these things, but a judgment against him is not worth the paper it is printed on as he has nowhere near sufficient assets to satisfy such a judgment. But Hazelwood and Exxon were found jointly and severably liable which means that each is liable for the entirety of the damages awarded by the jury.]

And it is the corporation which [who? :-)] was trying to make the case to the public (and hiring marketing firms to do so), that the entities at fault were simply God and Hazelwood; not the corporation. But if the corporation was negligent (!), it was not reckless (which is the critical issue regarding punitive damages and such a determination was necessary in order for punitive damages to attach).

Let me be crystal clear here. This is a critical point. We can debate whether we think Exxon was reckless for putting a known drunk at the wheel of an oil tanker. But our decisions are (and should be) irrelevant, because the jury; those whose duty it was to decide and who were in the best position to decide, did decide. Exxon, itself, was reckless. This is no longer solely an opinion, it is a determined matter of law that even the Supreme Court has no legal ability to change.

It was reckless for an additive plethora of reasons, the primary one of which was that they knowingly placed a fully loaded ~1000 foot, 212 ton, tanker filled with 56 million gallons of the worlds ugliest (tarry, high sulphur content, etc.) crude oil under the control of Captain Hazelwood while it traversed some of the most pristine environmentally sensitive areas of the world; at night (it was almost exactly midnight when they missed the gap and hit the reef) ... knowing that he had a substantial drinking problem and a history of incredibly poor judgment. Exxon had paid for Hazelwood's alcohol rehab treatment in 1985, but made no follow-ups of any sort: no post-treatment evaluations or counseling, no monitoring of any sort.

Instead Exxon immediately put him back in command knowing as they admitted at trial that "a captain with a substance abuse problem was a recipe for disaster".

Hazelwood's driver's license (for automobiles, not supertankers ... although one would think if he wasn't considered capable of entrusting an automobile to, it is difficult to imagine that handing him the keys to a crude oil carrying supertanker would be fine) had been revoked or suspended three times between 1984 and 1989 by the State of New York for alcohol violations. In fact, at the time of the spill, his driving license was in suspension because of an arrest in New York for driving under the influence in September of 1988. This information is routinely reported to employers and is generally a requirement that it also be reported to the employer by the drunken driver himself. It is virtually inconceivable that Exxon did not know that at the time they told him to drive one of the largest and potentially most destructive vehicles in the world ... he could not legally drive to the docks to board the vessel.

Exxon senior management was proven to have received multiple and continuing reports between 1985 and 1989 that Hazelwood was continuing to drink to excess openly; indeed publicly. Exxon took no actions of any sort in response to these reports, except that his superiors would drink with him!.

In 1989 (five years before the trial and before Exxon's lawyers and P.R. people got everyone in the company's management "under control", the Chairman of Exxon specifically said that putting Hazelwood in charge of a supertanker was a "gross error"). Not just a negligent mistake, mind you, but he specifically admitted that Exxon had made a "gross error". There are many ways of saying "reckless" for purpose of punitive damages and other legal issues. "Gross error" is one of those equivalent terms. An "error" equates to "reckless" which might make them liable for compensatory damages, but does not make them liable for punitive damages. But "gross error" is the same as "gross negligence" which is the equivalent of "reckless". Therefore, by the admission of Exxon's own chairman ... Exxon fit the criteria for punitive damage liability.

Further, at trial five years later, after having been heavily coached, an Exxon manager testified that Exxon's policies, despite their knowledge of the risk to the public of the "catastrophic" results of a supertanker accident, allowed a relapsed alcoholic to command an oil tanker which left him (the manager), given "Exxon's attitude towards alcohol", with "no policy to protect the safety of the public".

There was other testimony regarding that and other aspects of Exxon's general recklessness in shipping out of PWS (breaking federal fatigue laws, departing into heavy ice conditions at night to save money, etc.).

But I don't need to try to prove that Exxon was reckless. I noted at the beginning of his section that it was reckless as a matter of law that not even the Supreme Court has the power to change. That is because the jury so determined. And once a jury makes a factual determination (which this is construed to be), that issue is not appealable.

The way our system works is often misunderstood. But since the right to trial by jury is paramount, only the jury is allowed to determine facts. [Which makes practical sense as well ... it is only to a jury that factual disputes are presented. Only the jury (and trial judge) hear the testimony and watch the body language of those speaking and are privy to so many things that can't be captured in an electronic record, that it would make no sense to have an appellate court attempt to redetermine the facts of the case.] Additionally, in this case, there was no question but what there were highly competent lawyers and experts on both sides making sure the evidence was properly presented and done so in as favorable a light to their side as possible. And the jury determined that Exxon was reckless.

What is appealable is the "law". That is what the lawyers argue to the judge about and what the judge ultimately includes in his written (and spoken) jury instructions. If the judge was incorrect on the law ... if he made a ruling (regarding an objection to the admission of certain evidence, for instance) that was wrong legally, or if an instruction regarding the law given to the jurors was wrong ... that may be appealed.

But whether Exxon was reckless or not, may not be appealed unless the judge gave incorrect instructions regarding his jury instructions regarding how they are to determine whether conduct qualifies as reckless. No one has seriously argued that the judge got the law wrong on this issue. (I say "seriously" instead of just saying that no one argued it ... because it is possible that Exxon did argue it at some point. But no one took it seriously and no appellate court ever suggested that there was a problem with the formulation of the law.)

Presumably, in fact, that is why the Supreme Court had to leave in the award some amount of punitive damages. They too were bound by the jury's finding of recklessness. (That said, even though they couldn't legally touch the fact that punitive damages were appropriate, in their consideration of "how much?" they effectively did by the back door what they could not by the front.)

The general public, however, was not so bound. Exxon argued vociferously to the media and anyone else outside the courtroom who would listen, that it was not reckless.

There is an old theory that if you can obsfucate an issue sufficiently, then no one really understands what is right and what is wrong and assumes everything is gray and that whatever the courts ultimately decide is probably right. Because we as a nation, perhaps more than any other on earth, respect and honor our judicial system.

Indeed we believe in it in a way that we seldom even think about but that folks from other countries really don't ever seem to understand. Other countries have legislatures to pass laws and an executive branch: presidents or other administrations to carry them out ... but in perhaps no other country is the court system relied upon so strongly, and believed in so fiercely, as the third leg of out government and the one most important for preserving out freedoms and protections from oppression. In the words of the Australian commedian/singer Fred Dagg: "You don't know how lucky you are, mate, you don't know how lucky you are."

Sadly, despite the intellect and apparent nitty-gritty willingness to claw and scratch and give their best fight no matter what the arena, the plaintiff attorneys proved to be idealistic optimists after all. They believed in the system. Even after so many, many years of delay, they too, honestly believed that although the wheels grind slowly, that they grind exceedingly fine and that justice would ultimately prevail. They believed that we were a country of laws and an honorable court system and that raw money and power could not buy justice away from those to whom it belongs if the forces of good gave it their all. I would not be surprised to see the major law firms that have gone so far out on a limb for those below the waterline in this case to be shuttering their offices. Some will stop in the bankruptcy courts that they had practiced in. Others will simply go away.

Because they were wrong.

Exxon proved, gloatingly, to the world, that we no longer live in a country of justice and law. Instead, we live in a corpocracy and the Exxons of the world run it. And they glory in proving that they do.

It is conceivable that a justice was bribed. Exxon certainly had the money and we've seen a lot of outright bribery by oil companies in Alaska. And justices don't make enough money to be above financial temptation. But I have no evidence nor even real suspicions that such happened.

I believe what happened is that the insurance companies finally purchased the judges they want on the bench (judges and justices do not believe in the concept of punitive damages or if they do, they believe they should be severely limited). But they did this ... well ... I am not alleging that they did it in any way that was not legal. There are ways within the system to "purchase judges" without committing a crime.

Continued: