Amazon Watch claims Ecuador's not a party to Chevron lawsuit? Think again!

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

In the ongoing legal battle between Chevron and Ecuador (regarding the lawsuit filed against the oil giant for estimated alleged environmental damage done while Chevron Texaco was producing oil in the Amazon until 1992), there is charge made by some Chevron opponents, specifically the activist group Amazon Watch, that Ecuador should not be mentioned as a "party" to the lawsuit.

Before I continue, let's get the definition of "party to a lawsuit" out of the way. It's actually more complicated that the lay reader knows.

The common standard defintion of "party" is the plaintiff or defendant in a lawsuit. But even then, it depends on the nature of the case. According the Connecticut Supreme Court State of Conneticut v. Ralston Salmon, a "party" definition can be established by a court and is not "fixed", the "swing point" in the determination of who's has the right to be considered a "party" to a case and is "aggrieved".

"Aggrieved" means "Feeling distress or affliction." As I will demonstrate, Ecuador, from President Correa's statements and involvement, has established itself as an aggrieved party.

The actual legal name of the lawsuit commonly referred to as "Chevron v. Ecuador" is "Aguinda v. Chevron Texaco" and was originally filed in 1993. Because of this, Chevron opponents claim that Ecuador should not be written as if it was a party to the lawsuit, as I have done. Amazon Watch representatives have even went so far as to pressure SFGate.com editors to have me change my blogs to reflect their point of view.

Fortunately, the SFGate editors have resisted and asked me to provide this blog post and for good reason.

This is what Amazon Watch claims:

"The government of Ecuador is not the architect of the Chevron lawsuit, is not a party to the lawsuit, and will not be the recipient of any judgment paid by Chevron. This is a civil suit by private citizens."

That very broad and dangerous paragraph leaves much room for error.

President Correa is careful to publicly say that the lawsuit is "private" as in its not filed by the government of Ecuador. But in practice his actions - and those of other political operatives - prove that the Ecuadorian government is very much involved in the lawsuit and could be identified as a party to it in court.

For example, President Rafael Correa is commonly listed as a supporter of the lawsuit in several blogs and news sites, from Forbes, to Latin American Thought, to Gonzalo Raffo to Bob McCarty's Blog, where he reports that plaintiff attorneys visited the palace of President Correa, writing:

A reliable source, whose identity I cannot reveal for his own security, informed me today that at least three ADC principals — Steven R. Donziger, Pablo Fajardo and Luis Yanza, all attorneys — were in the South American nation’s capitol city of Quito Wednesday and met with tinpot dictator Correa at his presidential palace at 4 p.m. local time (same as U.S. Central time zone).

McCarty writes that he obtained the cell phone number of Steve Donziger, the lead lawyer who filed the lawsuit in 1993; Donziger did not return his call. McCarty says that Karen Hinton, who frankly has done a terrific job in this case, did "leave the door open" to confirming the meeting. McCarty writes:

She (Hinton) did, however, leave the door cracked open just a bit regarding whether or not such a meeting took place (i.e., she said she would get back to me with answers).


I’m not, however, going to hold my breath while waiting for it. I would advise you against doing it as well. Nearly two hours have passed since my phone call with Hinton. Don’t really expect a reply anytime soon.

And if one needs another example of Ecuador's involvement and why I and others recognize it as a party to this case, I point to the now famous set of hidden camera videos. But not the one with Judge Juan Nunez in them. No.

The one that refers to President Correa's sister as the one of the recipients of the "bribe" of $3 million for two environmental consultants to get work from the then-anticipated $27 billion award against Chevron.

In this video,



As I wrote after the bribery allegations were issued:

The second part of the video was filmed at Alianza PAIS (which means "Proud and Sovereign Fatherland" according to the Wikipedia listing) Offices June 22, 2009. PAIS is a political movement led by President Correa. Who Patricio Garcia is beyond his appearance in this video and his role in PAIS is still basically unknown as of this writing.


Garcia says that the President's sister Pierina will be helpful (presumably in making sure that the businessmen get their piece of the planned $27 billion pie) and will meet with "The Gringo" (that's Hansen). I checked and "Prierina" is indeed described here as "Pierina Correa, the president's sister and an Alianza PAIS leader in Guayas province". That confirms my assertion that Garcia is tied to the President and his family as he states in the video.

Now someone, perhaps from Amazon Watch, would counter, "That has nothing to do with the lawsuit award," but even that's not true. While the "cover story", as I call it, is that 30,000 indigenous tribes are represented in the lawsuit, the question of who collects the money and how has not been publicly answered. But it has been privately.

The Amazon Defense Coalition has been identified as but one "fiscal agent" of the award, should the court case go against Chevron. And the lawsuit has been paid for by the Philadelphia law firm of Kohn, Swift, and Graf, not "the indigenous tribes" of Ecuador.

Steve Donziger has worked on behalf of Kohn, Swift, and Graf apparently as far back as 2003 in the matter of this lawsuit.

But it's not clear who will get the award money and how it will get to the people of an area that the government has not only supported for oil production but seems clear to have it remain as a place for it. So far, the only clear Ecuadorian-based organization that is likely to be involved is Alianza PAIS, which is led by, again, President Correa, who's claimed the country has been aggrieved by Chevron Texaco.

(Opponents should be very careful here; the challenge statement would be to prove that Ecuador has not been damaged at all.)

Messy.

Now, in fairness, Donziger has met with some of the people in the region, but he's openly stated he is aware that he stands to become a billionaire from this legal fight, even as he's stated he and his team would "likely" take a smaller percentage than the common one-third of the award.

<h3>Ecuador's people lose in the end </h3>

The legal battle obscures the real issue of poor economic development in Ecuador and of a country that's not getting its petrodollars or development investment to the people who need it the most, yet participating in the harm of the region of the country where they live. 

It also masks the more complex issue of class warfare in Ecuador and how its in some cases a life-threatening task to help some of the tribes in the Amazon. But that's another story for another blog post.

Ecuador's involved alright: headfake politics

Ecuador is trying to play both sides of the political economic fence. It wants to gain from a court victory against Chevron but not antagonize the oil industry with an officially public government lawsuit.

It's the perfect "head fake" politics of of the brilliant President Correa, using American activists to do his political dirty work, while leaving the Ecuadorian Amazon region 65 percent zoned for oil production and initiating a government takeover of privately held oil production.

Regardless of words, in reality Ecuador's a party to the lawsuit, alright. Believe it.

ACORN, Ecuador, Chevron, and the hidden video camera

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

Readers and viewers have asked me to offer my opinion on the discovery by a couple of conservative activists that a couple of workers at the Washington DC office of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now or ACORN were giving advice on how a pimp and a prostitute can hide themselves from IRS scrutiny.

The "pimp" and the "prostitute" were "played" by James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles, she a columnist at TownHall.com in Washington, D.C, he a filmmaker and activist.

What they reportedly did was go around America on a tour of different ACORN offices posing as pimp and prostitute. According to CNN, most ACORN offices called the police on them with the exception of the Washington and Baltimore offices. Here's the video of what was said in the ACORN Washington office:



Now, what do I think? Well, the ACORN workers were wrong of course. Do you think I'm going to defend someone giving tax evasion tips to a pimp and his, well, you know. (I can't help but wonder if O'Keefe and Giles were sleeping together during their tour posing as people who were in the sex business. I mean all that talk and travel had to make them horny at some point, right?)

I also think it's a lot like the Chevron Ecuador case, where Ecuador Judge Juan Nunez was secretly caught on video in a meeting talking about the Chevron case and how he could rule and what the cost would be - $27 billion. Even though the Judge picked his words carefully, it was clear he knew about "that other thing" (because he used those words) which were the bribe arrangements where two environmental consultants would pay $3 million for the right to get a part of the remediation work the $27 billion was to pay for, in part.

Here's that video:



The cry in that case was that the consultants worked for Chevron; actually that's not exactly true but I'll deal with that in another blog post. The whine in the ACORN case was that the videos were made without the knowledge of the workers. In both episodes my response is if the subjects know that they're doing the right thing, they don't care if a camera or camcorder's in the room.

The simple fact that being secretely filmed is an issue for both the Judge and the ACORN workers means they knew they should not have been in those situations saying what they said.

Period.

The ACORN workers on camera were advocating a corrupt practice. The Judge and his friends in the Chevron video were caring out a corrupt practice.

I tell everyone I know this: if you're always in the right, you can't fear the use of a camera or camcorder because it will show that you were correct in your actions. The video made by O'Keefe and Giles doesn't damage the overall intent of ACORN at all; but it does call into question the ethics of some of the workers hired to staff the offices in certain cities, like DC.

The best action for anyone is to have their own camcorder. It's a good idea to have video evidence of one's actions anyway. But the bottom line is to just be on the right side of an ethics fight and to use the Golden Rule: do onto others as you would have others do on to you.

Chevron Ecuador: Amazon Defense Coalition's statement on Judges' recusal

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

The Amazon Defense Coalition sent this email to me containing their statement responding to the news that Ecuadorian Judge Juan Nunez recused himself in the wake of a video that captured him in a meeting explaining how he planned to rule in the Ecuador / ADC lawsuit against Chevron.

The statement:

Judge’s Recusal Clears Path For Legal Proceedings to Continue
Validates Chevron’s Initial Faith in Ecuadorian Court System

Quito, Ecuador (September 4, 2009) – Steven Donziger, attorney for the plaintiffs, said:

The judge’s decision to recuse himself clears the path for the legal proceedings to continue uninterrupted. This appears to have been done by the judge to disrupt Chevron's intention to further delay a litigation that has lasted 16 years. The judge’s action once again validates the effective functioning of the Ecuadorian legal system — a system that Chevron chose as the best forum to hear the lawsuit. The vast majority of the competent evidence in the case, including all the evidence used as a basis for the $27.3 billion damages assessment against Chevron, was received by the court prior to the tenure of Judge Nunez.

We again call on competent authorities in Ecuador and the United States to investigate any role Chevron and its officials might have played to script a bribery scheme for purposes of extracting an advantage in a private litigation.


The recusal does not change the overwhelming evidence against Chevron in the underlying case. The evidence in that case demonstrates clearly Chevron’s responsibility for wrecking the rainforest, decimating indigenous groups, and putting thousands of Ecuadorian citizens at grave risk.”


NOTE: Chevron’s main defense is that a 1995 remediation agreement, signed with the government of Ecuador two years after the lawsuit was filed in the US in 1993, releases the company from all responsibility for the contamination. However, it is important to include that the agreement specifically carves out individual, third-party claims, such as ours, in the agreement. Chevron was not released from lawsuits such as the Aguinda vs Chevron case. Also, evidence in the Ecuadorian trial has found that the oil wells and pits that Texaco claimed to have cleaned in the remediation agreement test today at extremely high and illegal levels of toxic contamination. The plaintiffs maintain that the remediation agreement was a sham. Two Chevron lawyers, who worked for Texaco at the time, and seven former Ecuadorian officials have been indicted for fraud.

Chevron Ecuador Judge Nunez bribery scandal - implications

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget! | Visit YouTube | Visit UShow.com

In a blockbuster development, Ecuador Judge Juan Nunez, the key legal figure in the Chevron Ecuador environmental damage case, is captured in a video shown here explaining that he plans to rule against the oil giant and for an award of $27 billion "more or less". The judge explains that the verdict will happen and that Chevron will be blocked from filing an appeal of his ruling. In that segment of the video, the Judge explains he's only there to talk about the verdict, not about "the other stuff" which refers to a $3 million payoff request. Later in the video its implied that Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa will benefit from the bribe amount.

On video today I talked to Chevron Media Relations representative Sean Comey about the video and Chevron's investigation.



In the video Judge Nunez, Aulo Gelio ServioTulio Avila ("Avila"), and Pablo Almeida and are talking with two gentleman, Wayne Hansen and Diego Borja who are environmental remediation contractors and in the Judge's chamber in Lago Agrio, Ecuador.  Hansen and Borja have pen-installed camcorders in their shirt pockets.  Diego Borja has worked for Chevron before, Hansen has not, according to Chevron.

Judge Nunez (on the left)

The idea of the meeting was for the Judge and his political associates to be paid by the environmental company for business that would come to them as a result of the Judge's planned verdict.  Here's what the Judge said from the video and the Amazonpost website:

Núñez:             “Any other questions for me as a judge?”
Hansen:           “Oh no, I, I know clearly how it is, you say, Chevron is the guilty party?”
Núñez:             “Yes Sir.”
Hansen:           “And the, the, the act (decision) is October or November of this year?”
Núñez:             “Yes Sir.”
Hansen:           “And it’s….?”
Núñez:             “No later than January.”
Hansen:           “January 2010. And the money is twenty-seven (billion dollars)?”
Núñez:             “It might be less, and it might be more.”

The Judge says "I have nothing to do with that other part" which is not explained in full but Garcia below fills in "the blanks" later, explaining that the Judge will be paid part of $3 million from the consulants.

 Patricio Garcia

The second part of the video has an operative Patricio Garcia (photo from the Amazonpost website) who's reportedly a member of Ecuador's ruling party talking about how the $3 million would be delivered and transfered. This is what was said by Garcia:

Borja: “OK. Of the three million … one million is for the judge?”


Garcia: “Yes.”


Borja: “One million for the presidency…?”


Garcia: “Yes.”


Borja: “And one million for the plaintiffs?”


Garcia: “Yes, that’s right.”


Borja: “But, Loco, for the plaintiffs, who gets the money? Fajardo?”


Garcia: “No. The thing is, we’re going to handle it here.”


Borja: “You mean Alianza PAIS would receive the payment here?”


Garcia: “Right.”

Here's the 30 minute version of the video (the full two hour version is here):



But there's more to this video than what's reported in the press thus far. The focus here is on President Rafael Correa, who's office is named by Patricio Garcia as a beneficiary of the planned bribe money as is "his sister" as stated in the video above. As of this writing Correa has not issued a statement, but his reputation has already come under attack.

The second part of the video was filmed at Alianza PAIS (which means "Proud and Sovereign Fatherland" according to the Wikepedia listing)  Offices June 22, 2009.   PAIS is a political movement led by President Correa.   Who Patricio Garcia is beyond his appearance in this video and his role in PAIS is still basically unknown as of this writing. 

Garcia says that the President's sister  Pierina will be helpful (presumably in making sure that the businessmen get their piece of the planned $27 billion pie) and will meet with "The Gringo" (that's Hansen).  I checked and "Prierina" is indeed  described here as "Pierina Correa, the president's sister and an Alianza País leader in Guayas province".  That confirms my assertion that Garcia is tied to the President and his family as he states in the video.


Shocking.  


Chevron wants Nunez taken off the case

The implication here is that as Chevron Media Relations representative Sean Corney said in my video above, Chevron wants Nunez taken off the environmental damage case.  But given that Chevron has informed the U.S. Department of Justice, the revalation could have deeper implications.  

It could cost the country its Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) status, which was just renewed in June of this year.  Whatever the case, this news sends a clear message that doing business in Ecuador is not the "clean" experience it should be. Until now, blogs have reported the problems of corruption in Ecuador and with respect to President Correa's involvement in the Chevron case, but now we have visible evidence to back those claims.

The news also forever destroys the claim made by Ecuador lawsuit legal advisor Steve Donziger and others who say that the lawsuit against Chevron has nothing to do with the Ecuadorian Government and is brought by citizens of the Amazon. But Correa has appeared with Donziger in public and has been interviewed about the case.

Right.  

One can see that the bribe money's not going anywhere near those groups of people Donziger claims to represent; the political party PAIS would get it and "handle it" as Garcia said in the video.  The question is, did Donziger or his associates in Ecuador and America know about this bribe plan?  Was he to be one of the plaitiffs that would get the bribe money? In the Amazon Defense Coalition statement today, he does not address the possibility that he may be involved, instead he said "As the facts come out it's going to backfire heavily on Chevron."



Amazon Defense Coalition defends Judge Nunez

Karen Hinton of the Amazon Defense Coalition told Reuters that the video shows Judge Nunez resisting the bribery matter. (This is Hinton's full statement.)  In point of fact, the video shows the judge saying that he's speaking in the role of Judge and "does not know about that other matter" which is a way of saying he does know but does not want it to be officially said that he does know.  It's called "plausible deniability ." 

Stay tuned.

Notes:

Full video transcripts:


Meeting 1 Transcript (228 KB)
Meeting 2 Transcript (195 KB)
Meeting 3 Transcript (218 KB)
Meeting 4 Transcript (217 KB)

Somehow U.S. Senators Get Suckered into asking for Ecuador Chevron trial without "U.S. Meddling"

Considering the smelly deals going on in Ecuador, like the plaintiff paying off the court-ordered environmental economist to the tune of $200K, that four great U.S Senators - Democratic Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Robert Casey of Pennsylvania and Patrick Leahy of Vermont - could be suckered into calling for a "clean trial" without "U.S. Meddling" is totally funny. What about Ecuador meddling? I guess that's ok. With this kind of crap, the real problems in Ecuador of government and legal corruption will never be solved.

Amazon Defense Coalition A Fake Company Created By Hinton Communications For Chevron Ecuador Case

Ok.  Here's one for the books.  Because I dare bring a balanced view of the Chevron Ecuador case, Karen Hinton of Hinton Communications decides that I must be paid by Chevron.  In other words, no one can possibly take a middle ground position, or even think that one exists.

The problem is that it does.  Moreover, I have evidence here that the claims against Chevron are part of Ecuador's plan to clear the Amazon of foreign oil interests and replace them with state-owned Petroecuador's oil drilling activities.  Ecuador cares about the poor of the Amazon far less than it cares about extracting petrodollars from the Amazon. 

A Front For Ecuador and Petroecuador

Ok.  Let's do some house-cleaning over the mess Hinton Communications has left for me to clean up.  The first fact is this:  the "Amazon Defense Coalition" does not exist except in the mind of Karen Hinton.  It's presented as a firm, a group, a company, but Hinton is the only constant spokesperson who issues material for this supposedly operating organization.

In point of fact, there's no "Amazon Defense Coalition" there's no website, no office, no president, no secretary and no budget.  The only person who is consistently listed is Hinton herself.  What she's done, in a brilliant stroke of PR genius that I've got to stop and admire for a second, is to consistently flood the Internet with press release after press release with the words "Amazon Defense Coalition" on the title, so what comes up in a search is for "Amazon Defense Coalition" are results with that listing, so the layperson says "Well, there is an Amazon Defense Coalition because of all these search results."

Yeah.  Right.  Look deeper.

The vast majority of the results are reprints of the same press releases Hinton sends out.  There's no evidence of anyone consistently writing for the "Amazon Defense Coalition" other than Hinton herself or Hinton Communications.  It's no wonder a Google lookup of "Amazon Defense Coalition Hinton" shows over 3,000 results!  

Karen Hinton should come clean and reveal what I already know: that her American company is working for the President of Ecuador Rafael Correa as a foreign agent and appears to be financed by them.

Hinton's ties in this matter are deep.  She's linked with Washington lobbyist Ben Barnes, who's linked with Steve Donziger, of the law firm Kohn, Swift, and Graft (who hired Barnes), and who's the master lawyer in the lawsuit against Chevron and who may be getting resources from the Ecuadorian government, too.   Indeed, the The Ben Barnes Group is listed as one of Hinton's clients and Hinton's the Amazon Defense Coalition so one can effectively say that Barnes has a major role in the Amazon Defense Coalition because it's really just Hinton who's paid by Barnes, who in turn is paid by Donziger / Kohn, Swift, and Graft, who must get its money from the Ecuadorian government, because they too stand to rake in billions, even with the one-third award stake Donziger will gain should he prevail in these legal battles.    It's worth the investment. 

The Ben Barnes Group is an effective lobbying organization, and its founder, Barnes, has made millions doing deals between special interest groups, companies, and powerful Democratic office-holders.  Barnes has served as the spokesperson for R. Allen Stanford, who's the focal point of the Stanford Investment Scandal. (To be fair, Barnes says he has played no role in Stanford's business dealings and is said to be "shocked and saddened" by the allegations against his friend and client.) 

It's hotly rumored that The Barnes Group hired former Speaker of the California Assembly, San Francisco Mayor, and SF Chronicle Columnist Willie Brown to work with them and Donziger against Chevron in the Ecuador case, and that news is "loose" because my friends - and I have a lot of them - tell me Willie's yappin' about the deal all over San Francisco!  I wonder how much of this gravy train he's going to take in? 

Nice.

President Correa, Donziger, Barnes, and Hinton care about bucks, not the people of the Amazon.  And it's questionable at best that President Correa himself really cares about the poor people of the Amazon over oil exploration, as he would have others believe.  Indeed, in 2007, Correa's advanced a proposal where countries would pay them $4 billion to protect a part of their country called Yasuni National Park in the Amazon from oil exploration, but if they didn't get the money, Ecuador itself will drill for oil there anyway!

Guess what?  They didn't get the money!  That led to a new round of drilling that effected the Yasuni National Park, which is supposed to be the "protected area" according to the "World Rainforest Movement" which reports:

In December 2008, the Waorani denounced new oil exploration activities in the Cononaco oilfield. In order to appease the community, the Ecuadorian state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, paid them 35,000 dollars. But these new activities affect the Yasuní National Park, a protected area.

Previous oil operations in Cononaco have been inspected as part of the trial underway against Texaco, since the activities in the field were undertaken by this multinational oil giant. Of the 35 samples taken, 30 showed readings higher than those permitted by law.

The area in question forms part of both the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve and the Waorani people’s ancestral territory, and the contamination caused by oil activities there directly affects Yasuní National Park.

When the pipeline between the Auca and Cononaco oilfields burst in 2006, the resulting oil spill contaminated the Tiputini River which runs through the National Park. But the new exploration activity is even more menacing, because it is taking place in areas vital to the survival of indigenous peoples living in voluntary isolation.

So much for Ecuador's real concern about their own people, let alone the environment. Ecuador fans will say President Correa stopped oil exploration in the area, but he didn't stop it.  He put a stay on it.  That means after June 2009, oil exploration activities start again.  The Amazon is a revenue generator for Ecuador, but Correa knows he can't effectively win a lawsuit against Chevron and stick it to Ecuador's poor at the same time, so he made a brilliant political move designed to get him good press.

For a month.

If the "Amazon Defense Coalition" really cares about the Amazon, ask Karen Hinton why Correa's planning another round of oil exploration in the Yasuni National Park area?   Don't ask "SOSYasuni" because they cover for the Ecuadorian Government.  Indeed, by first asking for Western oil companies for payment to protect Yasuni, then threatening to drill for oil themselves (using Petroecuador) if they don't get the money, Ecuador's trying to crowd-out its own oil market from foreign interests and pave the way for the state-owned Petroecuador and the Petroecuador-owned Petroamazonas S.A to drill and gain revenue.   A very clever campaign.

Petroamazonas S.A  got the rights to drill at "Block 31" from Ecuador, which retook control from the Brazilian-owned oil company Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras in 2008:

Petroamazonas, which is majority-owned by state oil company Petroecuador, is looking for financing from multilateral lenders and foreign countries to develop block 31, but Pastor didn't give details.
"We are in talks to get financing. If we obtain financing this block will be developed this year. We plan to drill around 14 wells," Pastor said.
Last year, the Ecuadorian government and Brazil's state-run oil firm, Petroleo Brasileiro SA, or Petrobras, agreed to finish the contract for block 31, which was transferred to the state.
Block 31 has 200,000 hectares, some of this within the Yasuni National Park, which Unesco has declared a world biosphere reserve.

To the press, it looked like Ecuador's Correa was being an environmental hero, but in point of fact, he was just gathering more Ecuadorian territory to be drilled by the Ecuadorian government.  U.S.-based Occidental Petroleum Corp was litterally kicked out of the country and while Chevron / Texaco left long ago, Ecuador's trying to extort money from them via this disingenuous environmental damage claim ; the indigenious people of the Yasuni area are an afterthought both to them and to Donziger's people; the color of money is the only green they care about.  Have doubts?  Ask Steve Donziger if he would work for free.

Chevron Accuses Richard Cabrera Of Voodoo Economic In Ecuador

Professor Richard Cabrera, the economist who's estimates have served to frame the environmental damage terms of debate in the court battle between giant oil company Chevron and the coutry of Ecuador, has been accused of what could be called "Voodoo Economics" by the San Ramon-based firm.

In a damaging press release, Chevron write the following:

Despite an awareness of these fundamental defects, Cabrera’s amended assessment makes no effort to correct any prior mistakes and introduces a new series
of egregious errors, such as:

• Recommending more than $9 billion in damages associated with “excess cancer deaths” without identifying a single victim, let alone providing any corroborating documentation such as a death certificate or a medical diagnosis.
• Recommending more than $3 billion in damages associated with groundwater contamination
even though his own data clearly indicate no such contamination exists, and Cabrera
acknowledges that he has no basis for devising a remediation plan or developing a cost estimate.
Rather, Cabrera simply adopts plaintiffs’ counsel’s demands to assess damages and repackages
them as fact.
• Conceding that his work was conducted in such a fashion as to assign blame to Chevron instead
of performing an objective and unbiased scientific analysis of current environmental conditions,
as the court had ordered.

Their assertions continue and essentially build a case to attack Cabrera's work. But my charge has been it's almost impossible to find anything about Cabrera online, other than his work on the Ecuador lawsuit against Chevron, where the country is attempting to have the oil firm pay entirely for environmental damage that Ecuador itself is largely responsible for. In this matter, Cabrera has filed fraudulent economic report claims, making estimates of monetary damage costs without providing substantiated evidence to support his report findings.