Refusal of American courts to enforce a $9 billion Ecuadorian judgment was based on bribery?

I wrote in August of 2016 about a completely crooked decision of an American court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, that took an exception to its usual doctrine that a court does not have final jurisdiction to sit in appeal of a final judgment of a court of the state (or of another country) - and refused to enforce a 9-billion-dollar verdict against Chevron.

Of course, when such decisions are made, the question is not whether judges were bribed, the question is - when will it be revealed to the public and who and how much was bribed.

Fast-forward 1.5 years, things started to pop up.

First, it came out that a judge who refused to enforce the judgment against Chevron appointed as a Special Master his own former law partner who was paid by Chevron.

Second, it came out that Chevron paid $2 million to its leading witness in a bench trial.

And, third, it came out that Chevron is now trying to have the lawyer who fought for Ecuadorans hurt by Chevron and won that judgment for them in the first place - in Ecuador - disbarred in the United States.

Oh, well.