Where does the article say "Mr. Gitter was with Chevron long before the trial, he took money from them before appointment?" Given the highly misleading nature of the article you just linked, I would be very skeptical of trusting similar sources. There is a lot of "journalism" on this topic that takes tremendous liberties, relying on the fact that (1) most people don't understand how court proceedings or the law work; and (2) it's easy to hate Chevron.
For example, your article asserts that the RICO judgment against Donzinger has been "discredited." But a tribunal at the Hague, and also courts in Brazil, have found that the Ecuador judgment was procured by fraud. The article asserts that "Kaplan’s findings have been rejected in whole or in part in five different unanimous decisions by appellate courts in Canada and Ecuador, including the entire Supreme Courts of both countries." But when you actually look into it, the article seems to be relying on an early jurisdictional ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that allowed an enforcement action to go forward: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-plot-to-murde.... But the Canadian Supreme Court ultimately rejected enforcement of the Ecuadoran judgment in Canada: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2019/04/05/the-su....
The article you linked came out before the Canadian decision, so I can't fault it for not taking that into account. However, what's deeply misleading was suggesting that the 2015 Canadian decision "discredited" the U.S. RICO judgment. The Canadian courts did not grapple with whether the Ecuadorean judgment was procured by fraud. They were dealing with the very different issue of whether the judgment -- even if it was legitimate -- could be enforced against Chevron's Canadian entity, which is an entirely different company. It was misleading to suggest that the Canadian decision allowing the enforcement proceeding to go forward somehow "discredited" the U.S. RICO judgment.
For example, your article asserts that the RICO judgment against Donzinger has been "discredited." But a tribunal at the Hague, and also courts in Brazil, have found that the Ecuador judgment was procured by fraud. The article asserts that "Kaplan’s findings have been rejected in whole or in part in five different unanimous decisions by appellate courts in Canada and Ecuador, including the entire Supreme Courts of both countries." But when you actually look into it, the article seems to be relying on an early jurisdictional ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that allowed an enforcement action to go forward: https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/the-plot-to-murde.... But the Canadian Supreme Court ultimately rejected enforcement of the Ecuadoran judgment in Canada: https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelkrauss/2019/04/05/the-su....
The article you linked came out before the Canadian decision, so I can't fault it for not taking that into account. However, what's deeply misleading was suggesting that the 2015 Canadian decision "discredited" the U.S. RICO judgment. The Canadian courts did not grapple with whether the Ecuadorean judgment was procured by fraud. They were dealing with the very different issue of whether the judgment -- even if it was legitimate -- could be enforced against Chevron's Canadian entity, which is an entirely different company. It was misleading to suggest that the Canadian decision allowing the enforcement proceeding to go forward somehow "discredited" the U.S. RICO judgment.