Fuck Exxon

[ak_powder_monkey]

Support The Plaintiffs, don't buy exxon mobile products

[Ankf00]

so what am I protesting? Because Mobil-1 0-40's been working out great for my car so far...

[Cliff Huckable]

I'm guessing this is about Exxon's decision to remove marine gas stations from its roster.

[lionelhutz]

I was a paralegal for the firm that was lead plaintiff counsel in the exxon valdez class action case...from the docs I saw I have to agree...Fuck exxon.
(though the lawyers could also win a fuck you as they stand to pocket close to 1 billion)

[ak_powder_monkey]

www.cafepress.com/FUCKEXXON

[Cliff Huckable]

www.cafepress.com/FUCKEXXON

That's the worst design I can imagine. Nothing but white text on black and they still fuck it up.

[Mathematics]

for real. for a company that made $100mil profit a DAY last year they're now walking away with a slap on the wrist.

[DisArray]

Ya and for as big of deal as everyone made of the Valdez oil spill, the place is pretty pristine now. It ended up being NOTHING. The place healed itself. I don't see how being overly punitive helps anyone except the government and lawyers and the egos of a few overly whiney socialist enviro fucks. It was an accident. A slap on the wrist is all they deserved. Now give me cheap gas.

[Svengali]

"the place is pretty pristine now. It ended up being NOTHING. The place healed itself. " Your either an Idiot or an Exxon scientist!

edit: My guess is your an Idiot!

[DisArray]

Prove me wrong dipshit...

[Svengali]

First what is your proof that all is pristine? and secondly pm me your mailing address so I can send you your free oil samples when I get back from an annual month long survey of the sound in about month

[SuperChief]

Prove me wrong dipshit...

Why you hiding behind an alias? Coward.

[lionelhutz]

I don't need to prove you wrong
A jury already found billions in damages.

[Mathematics]

Ya and for as big of deal as everyone made of the Valdez oil spill, the place is pretty pristine now. It ended up being NOTHING. The place healed itself. I don't see how being overly punitive helps anyone except the government and lawyers and the egos of a few overly whiney socialist enviro fucks. It was an accident. A slap on the wrist is all they deserved. Now give me cheap gas.

you're a dumb fuck. have you ever been to valdez? go in the summer and dig down about 6 inches on any beach in the area.

that "accident" had and will continue to have a lasting negative impact on the environment. oil companies are given their license to operate up here based on the fact that they'll not damage the enviroment, and when they do they're responsible for cleaning it up. exxon has done nothing but try to get out of that responsibility.

[ak_powder_monkey]

Ya and for as big of deal as everyone made of the Valdez oil spill, the place is pretty pristine now. It ended up being NOTHING. The place healed itself. I don't see how being overly punitive helps anyone except the government and lawyers and the egos of a few overly whiney socialist enviro fucks. It was an accident. A slap on the wrist is all they deserved. Now give me cheap gas.

PWS has no more herring.. move any gravel with your feet and you will see an oil slick forming on any beach that was oiled. Tell that to the folks who's livelyhoods were destroyed.

[AlpineJunkie]

20 years later they still have not paid punitive damages and are still in appeal.... fucking "justice" system.

[BFD]

if anyone is interested here is an easy to understand synopsis of what is happening.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Wondering what to expect from the oral arguments and beyond? Our talented legal writer, Emily Anderson, has prepared the following on your behalf:


What can I expect from the oral argument?
Typically, an attorney for each side will have 30 minutes to make a presentation to the Supreme Court. In this case, the Court granted Exxon’s request for additional time so each side will have 45 minutes to argue. The arguments generally are very interactive and driven by questions posed by the Supreme Court Justices.

Who is arguing on Exxon’s behalf?
Walter Dellinger. Mr. Dellinger is the former acting Solicitor General and currently with the firm O’Melveny & Myers. He is a seasoned veteran of the Supreme Court bar and is scheduled to argue three cases before the Supreme Court this term.

Who is arguing on the Plaintiffs’ behalf?
Jeffrey Fisher. Mr. Fisher is a professor at Stanford Law School. He is a rising star of the Supreme Court bar with victories representing criminal defendants. Mr. Fisher will also argue three cases this term.

What are Exxon’s main arguments?
Exxon argues that punitive damages are not an available remedy under maritime law and/or the Clean Water Act. Exxon claims that longstanding maritime law precedent protects a company from the reckless acts of a captain at sea as long as the company did not direct or participate in the conduct. Exxon thus asserts that Hazelwood’s actions should not be imputed to the company.

In the alternative, Exxon claims that the Clean Water Act supplants all existing common law, including maritime law in the context of an oil spill. Since the Clean Water Act does not expressly mention punitive damages, Exxon argues that Congress did not intend it to be an available remedy.

Finally, Exxon argues that even if punitive damages are an available remedy the $2.5 billion dollar award is excessive. Exxon claims that the expenses it incurred to clean up the oil and the other criminal and civil government penalties and fines were adequate to punish the company.

What are the Plaintiffs’ main arguments?
The plaintiffs argue that punitive damage awards are proper and permissible under maritime law and/or the Clean Water Act. Plaintiffs contend that under maritime law and modern tort law a company is liable for the reckless acts of a managerial employee. Further, plaintiffs argue that regardless of vicarious liability Exxon was independently reckless when it continued to employ captain Hazelwood despite the known fact that he was a relapsed alcoholic. Therefore under either theory, the plaintiffs maintain that Exxon acted recklessly and is thus liable for punitive damages.

Plaintiffs also argue that in 1989 the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act rather than the Clean Water Act governed oil spills of trans-Alaskan oil. However, even if the Clean Water Act is applied it does not occupy the entire field of remedies with respect to oil spills especially as it pertains to private economic harm. The Clean Water Act was designed to help government enforce statutory standards to help remedy environmental harm. Tort law remains in place to help redress private economic harm. Thus the plaintiffs contend that punitive damages are available and in this case permissible.

Finally, the plaintiffs dispute Exxon’s claim that it was already adequately punished. Plaintiffs argue that after a very lengthy trial the district court reasonably determined that a multi-billion dollar punitive damage award was necessary to achieve punishment. Exxon foreseeably caused catastrophic harm when it placed a relapsed alcoholic in command of a supertanker. Thus the jury had ample reason to reject Exxon’s claim and award punitive damages.

Who can attend the oral argument?
The oral argument is open to the public but seating is limited and on a first-come, first-seated basis. Seating for the first argument will begin at 9:30 am. Please note that there are two lines, one for individuals who wish to hear the entire argument and one for tourists who just want to get a glimpse of the Supreme Court. The locations of the lines are marked by signs. Some arguments attract a very large crowd and may require getting in line very early to secure a seat.

Will the case be decided on February 27?
No. The Supreme Court will hear the case on February 27 but will not issue an opinion until later. There is no definite schedule or due date for a decision but all cases argued during the term are resolved before the Court recesses at the end of June.

How does the Supreme Court make a decision?
After the oral argument, the Justices meet in private to discuss the case and take a preliminary vote. A Justice in the majority is then tasked with drafting an opinion. The draft is privately circulated among the Justices until a final draft is agreed upon. This takes some time as the draft bounces around between the Justices. At any time before the final decision a Justice may change his/her mind.

Can either party appeal the Supreme Court decision?
No. The decision of the Supreme Court is final. However, a party has 25 days from the entry of judgment or decision to file a petition for rehearing. A rehearing is only granted if a majority of the Court agrees to revisit the decision.

What happens in the event of a tie?
The Supreme Court is generally composed of nine Justices so a tie is rare. However, in this case Justice Alito disqualified himself due to a conflict of interest so there is an even number. If the Court is deadlocked the Ninth Circuit’s $2.5 billion dollar punitive damage award remains intact and binding on the immediate parties.

How will we know when the Supreme Court makes a final decision?
When a final decision is reached the Justice who wrote the opinion announces the decision in a Court session. The Public Information Office then releases the full text of the opinion to the public and news media.