'Crude' director gains support in Chevron suit

[Judi Lynn]

Posted: Thurs., Jun. 24, 2010, 4:00am PT
Orgs come to the defense of Joe Berlinger
By TED JOHNSON

Hollywood guilds, documentarians and professional groups have come to the defense of director Joe Berlinger as he appeals a court order to turn over 600 hours of outtakes from his movie "Crude" to Chevron.

On July 14, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear Berlinger's appeal of a lower court's order that he turn over the material to the oil giant, which is fighting a legal battle against a class action of plaintiffs over its liability for the cleanup of oil fields in Ecuador. Chevron said the outtakes may provide compelling evidence of unethical activity on the part of Ecuadoran plaintiffs' lawyers and government officials.

In an amici curiae brief by Michael Donaldson of Donaldson & Callif, the entertainment groups argue that if Berlinger were to be required to turn over the material, it would "significantly impair the creation of documentary films that investigate controversial issues" and would have a "chilling effect" on such projects.

Two dozen orgs and individuals signed on to the brief, including the Directors, Writers and Producers guilds, Film Independent, the Intl. Documentary Assn., IFP Inc., Alex Gibney and Eddie Schmidt.

They also argue that although Berlinger is a documentarian, he is protected by journalists' privilege, and that Chevron has not met the threshold to overcome it.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118020991.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

[naaman fletcher]

1. I'm against Chevron, but

I tend to side with them on this one. I don't see why Berlinger should have more rights than the average citizen.

[Peace Patriot]

2. LOL!

Your comment reminds me of that of another DU poster who says, "I used to support Chavez but...blah...blah...blah...blah...blah..." thence to every plank of the corpo-fascist psyops/disinformation campaign against Chavez.

You're "against Chevron" but you're FOR their harassment of a journalist, FOR their effort to intimidate and silence critics, FOR their deep pockets P.R./legal campaign to destroy the "small people" (as BP put it) who die from their poison, whose lives are utterly ruined, whose children drink, wash their hands and shower in toxic oil mud?

You're "against Chevron" but FOR their utter irresponsiblity and lack of accountability?

Do tell us of the many ways that you are "against Chevron." And then tell us how this polluting behemoth, whose subsidiary, Texaco, left a toxic death trap in the Amazon rainforest the size of the state of Rhode Island, still pouring goo out of the ground, into fisheries and water supplies, and into children's bodies and the bodies of pregnant women, has any rights at all, let alone the right to threaten and silence the opposition!

[Judi Lynn]

3. I "used to support" Chevron until I started learning what Chevron has done to the poor, & powerless.

Once you know the truth you don't turn away from it, as those of us who are learning about US history vs. the people of Latin America and the Caribbean have discovered.

I've seen that "used to support" claim time after time by various posters, and never believed one of them. Anyone who knows what has happened cannot become ignorant of what they know unless there's been brain injury or a catastrophic illness.

In the same Texaco/Chevron-devastated areas of our world, the open ponds, streams of oil crappola have served to poison all the cattle, domestic, wild creatures trying to get water, the fish, birds, plant life, leavig an open, living graveyard cotinuing to claim more victims each new day.

Anyone with a heart, anyone with a brain has to know what little respect healthy people have for those who put ego and greed above the lives of living beings.

By the time I had read that "I used to support Chavez" only 3 or 4 times I KNEW something creepy was in OUR cyber water! They started saying this before his name was familiar in the U.S. as if they HAD to pick it up from very ugly, ignorant, emotionally stunted little Rumplestiltskins fatally attracted to the internetS as a place to play.

[naaman fletcher]

6. What does any of that have to do with this story?

What Chevron has or has not done is has nothing to do with the question at hand. The question at hand is weather or not this guy has to turn over his video footage. Unless of course you don't believe in the rule of law. There is nothing inconsistent with my position that Chevron is liable for billions of damages, but that on this narrow issue of the video footage they are correct.

[naaman fletcher]

5. It's easy.

I judge issues based on the facts. I am against Chevron. However, I also believe in the rule of law. On this narrow issue, I think that Chevron is correct. This guy has all sorts of video footage. Selective portions of it are being used against Chevron. Chevron has the right to look at all the video footage in their defense. This is really pretty basic stuff.

Your position is results oriented. That is, you decide what the outcome you want (Chevron loses) and then base your opinions on issues like this not on right/wrong or rule of law but solely on the outcome you desire.

[flamingdem]

4. It's great to see all the support he's getting, thanks Judy! nt