• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exxon Prevails in Court

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Another legal win for Exxon.


BREAKING: #ExxonKnew lawsuit crashes and burns

What will Bill and the McKibbenites do now? Oh Noes! From Climate Litigation Watch: Donor-, Tort Lawyer-Prompted NY AG Climate “Fraud” Suit Crashes, Burns In its “fraud” pursuit of ExxonMobil as a proxy for the energy industry, and anyone who might dare to oppose the climate agenda again, the New York Attorney General failed to clear…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]In its “fraud” pursuit of ExxonMobil as a proxy for the energy industry, and anyone who might dare to oppose the climate agenda again, the [/FONT]New York Attorney General failed to clear the lowest bar ever established for such matters, the Martin Act[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

FULL STORY HERE:Donor-, Tort Lawyer-Prompted NY AG Climate "Fraud" Suit Crashes, Burns - Climate Litigation Watch

 
America has the best justice money can buy.

“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling. The AG “produced no testimony either from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure,” the judge said.
 
Another legal win for Exxon.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
BREAKING: #ExxonKnew lawsuit crashes and burns

[FONT=&]What will Bill and the McKibbenites do now? Oh Noes! From Climate Litigation Watch: Donor-, Tort Lawyer-Prompted NY AG Climate “Fraud” Suit Crashes, Burns In its “fraud” pursuit of ExxonMobil as a proxy for the energy industry, and anyone who might dare to oppose the climate agenda again, the New York Attorney General failed to clear…
Continue reading →

[/FONT]
[FONT="]In its “fraud” pursuit of ExxonMobil as a proxy for the energy industry, and anyone who might dare to oppose the climate agenda again, the [/FONT][/COLOR][URL="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-10/exxon-prevails-over-n-y-in-climate-change-accounting-case"]New York Attorney General failed to clear the lowest bar ever established for such matters, the Martin Act[/URL][FONT="].[/FONT][FONT=&]

[/FONT]
FULL STORY HERE:Donor-, Tort Lawyer-Prompted NY AG Climate "Fraud" Suit Crashes, Burns - Climate Litigation Watch[FONT=&]

[/FONT]


A big oil company prevails in a lawsuit with the best attorneys that money can buy.

In other news, water is wet.
 
A big oil company prevails in a lawsuit with the best attorneys that money can buy.

In other news, water is wet.

“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling. The AG “produced no testimony either from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure,” the judge said.
 
“The office of the Attorney General failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that ExxonMobil made any material misstatements or omissions about its practices and procedures that misled any reasonable investor,” Ostrager wrote in a 55-page ruling. The AG “produced no testimony either from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure,” the judge said.

You already copy-pasted that comment, which supports what I said. ;)
 
America has the best justice money can buy.

Ha ha, you have yet to explain why the Prosecution didn't get any of the investors to testify they were being allegedly mislead by Exxon.

From the 55 page ruling:

.....The AG “produced no testimony either from any investor who claimed to have been misled by any disclosure,” the judge said.

You think you can do better than the States Attorney General?

The ruling Tuesday by New York Supreme Court Justice Barry Ostrager in Manhattan is a blow to the state’s attorney general, Letitia James, who accused the energy company of lying about its use of a “proxy cost” for carbon to account for future climate-change regulations.

Cheers
 
A big oil company prevails in a lawsuit with the best attorneys that money can buy.

In other news, water is wet.

Only a moron wouldn't want the best attorney they can afford.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

Why do you love weak representation in the court room?
 
Ha ha, you have yet to explain why the Prosecution didn't get any of the investors to testify they were being allegedly mislead by Exxon.

From the 55 page ruling:



You think you can do better than the States Attorney General?



Cheers

He can't do any better.
 
Really just a collateral attack as most investor lawsuits are. The reality is with all its warts big oil is the only reason we have the society we have. It has saved far more lives than it has harmed and will continue to do so. The energy market will evolve and big oil will as well.
 
Only a moron wouldn't want the best attorney they can afford.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

Why do you love weak representation in the court room?

Are you OK with money being more important than justice?
 
It's the only reply anyone needs. The lawsuit failed on the merits.

"When the facts aren't on your side, argue the law." Or in this case, the money-influenced interpretation of the law.
 
I guess they bought the judge?

Is that what you are saying here?

:lamo

Try to avoid embarrassing yourself with the strawman argument, RUSN. Maybe you could try some improved reading comprehension for a change?
 
Try to avoid embarrassing yourself with the strawman argument, RUSN. Maybe you could try some improved reading comprehension for a change?

You said money was the controlling factor here.

I asked you to prove it, but you dodged again as usual.

You are so good at being smug and wrong at the same time. :lamo

Now again, prove your case that money denied any justice here.
 
You said money was the controlling factor here.

I asked you to prove it, but you dodged again as usual.

You are so good at being smug and wrong at the same time. :lamo

Now again, prove your case that money denied any justice here.

He has nothing as usual........................., he is a leftist who has to torture any rationalizations to con himself into believing delusions against Exxon. He will NEVER allow the Judge decision to prevail in his leftist dream world.

Cheers.
 
You said money was the controlling factor here.

I asked you to prove it, but you dodged again as usual.

You are so good at being smug and wrong at the same time.:lamo

Now again, prove your case that money denied any justice here.

But that's not what you accused me of earlier, now was it? :) Earlier you said this:

I guess they bought the judge?

Is that what you are saying here?

That is a much more specific accusation than claiming this:

You said money was the controlling factor here.

Either you are being deliberately obtuse, you do not know how civil trials work, or you struggle with basic logic.
 
He has nothing as usual........................., he is a leftist who has to torture any rationalizations to con himself into believing delusions against Exxon. He will NEVER allow the Judge decision to prevail in his leftist dream world.

Cheers.

Nice ad hominem without even quoting me. Were you hoping that I wouldn't notice your pathetic attempt at an insult? :lamo
 
But that's not what you accused me of earlier, now was it? :) Earlier you said this:



That is a much more specific accusation than claiming this:



Either you are being deliberately obtuse, you do not know how civil trials work, or you struggle with basic logic.

Your very first comment on this thread was :

Are you OK with money being more important than justice?

I have asked you 2 different ways now to prove how money bought the courts decision.
 
Your very first comment on this thread was :

Are you OK with money being more important than justice?

I have asked you 2 different ways now to prove how money bought the courts decision.

Either you are being deliberately obtuse, you do not know how civil trials work, or you struggle with basic logic.

Looks like you are going for all three. :lol:

On the off chance that you might actually demonstrate some basic reading comprehension for a change, let me give you a hint: Does the name Johnnie Cochran ring a bell?
 
Looks like you are going for all three. :lol:

On the off chance that you might actually demonstrate some basic reading comprehension for a change, let me give you a hint: Does the name Johnnie Cochran ring a bell?

I guess you didn't mean what you meant to say to begin with.........even though everyone knows what you meant.
 
Back
Top Bottom