Did lawyers suing Chevron in Ecuador case file fraudulent reports?

What does Ecuador President Rafael Correa think?

Related searches: Amazon Defense Coalition, Chevron ecuador, American oil company news, steven donziger, Charles Calmbacher, environmental law news

In a blockbuster development that could effectively crash Ecuador's entire case against Chevron (or as the plaintiffs claim, the Ecuadorian indigenous groups even though President Rafael Correa is reported to pay close attention to the case) - the charge that Chevron failed to clean up alleged environmental damage made during oil production operations during Chevron / Texaco operation in Ecuador until 1992 - fraudulent reports were filed claiming dangerous contamination was found at Amazon oil well sites.

The person who's signature is on the report and said to be its author, Dr. Charles Calmbacher, gave sworn testimony made in a deposition released by Chevron today that he did not sign or write the report that was used as a major arguing case by The Amazon Defense Coalition against Chevron.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Charles Calmbacher's name was misspelled on the very same report that lawyers suing Chevron said was written by him, and Calmbacher said his report exonerated Chevron - that "I concluded that I did not see significant contamination that posed immediate threat to the environment or to humans or wildlife around it," in a statement provided to the WSJ by Chevron.

According to an email from Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for the Amazon Defense Coalition, which serves as the "fiscal agent" for the lawsuit and organizational home for the plaintiff's legal work in Ecuador...

"Dr. Calmbacher clearly agreed to have his signature placed on materials, including reports, that were to be submitted to the court, and he acknowledged he was actively reviewing the reports with out local, technical team. We are bewildered, frankly, at his testimony"

Hinton points to comments made by Dr. Calmbacher on August 27th, 2004, when the New York Times quoted him as saying "Their defense is a lot like the tobacco industry saying there is no evidence linking smoking and lung cancer." However, according to a news post on Chevron's website, the statement was made before Calmbacher started the work and finished the report.

The Chevron website press release explains...

After the lawsuit was filed against Chevron in 2003, the plaintiffs' lawyers nominated Dr. Calmbacher, and the court appointed him to conduct judicial inspections of oil well sites in the former Petroecuador-Texaco Petroleum Co. concession area to assess alleged environmental damage. Dr. Calmbacher led those inspections for the plaintiffs, supervising the taking of soil and water samples, from August to October 2004.

The fraudulent reports were filed in February and March 2005, and later used by Lago Agrio court appointee Richard Cabrera in his $27 billion damage assessment against Chevron. Cabrera never investigated Sacha 94 or Shushufindi 48, yet specified more than $101 million damages based on the fabricated findings. Dr. Calmbacher also inspected Sacha 6 and Sacha 21, yet the plaintiffs' lawyers failed to submit reports containing his conclusions regarding those well sites. Dr. Calmbacher testified that he did not find a risk to human health or the environment, or a need for further clean-up, at any of the Texaco Petroleum-remediated sites he inspected. He also said he never concluded that Texaco Petroleum's remediation in Ecuador in the 1990's was not successful.

So, the Amazon Defense Coalition's leaving out a key detail regarding who filed the report. The person all of this falls on is Steven Donziger, the lead lawyer on this case, who's made a name for himself and admitted that he would make billions from a win against Chevron as I explained in this video in 2008:



Hinton of the Amazon Defense Coalition was contacted for a response on the disconnect between the statement she pointed to from the New York Times in 2004 and the completion and filing of the Calmbacher report in 2005.

The main question is who falsified and filed that report?

Stay tuned.

Tiger Woods Press Conference - Woods gives 35 minute talk

Tiger Woods, The World's Greatest Golfer, just finished his longest press conference, and his first real one, since that infamous Thanksgiving night when he crashed his Cadillac, and the subsequent revelation that Woods had affairs with as many as 14 women. The Tiger Woods of the 35 minute press conference is getting an A-plus on the Golf Channel; this blogger will give him an A.

Tiger Woods, while still obviously a rash of emotions, took every question - 39 in all - given to him head on. He was asked about steroid allegations four times and surrounding the fact that Dr. Anthony Galea did visit Woods home in the past. Tiger Woods said that Anthony Galea did not give him steroids or Human Growth Hormone (HGH).

Woods said he felt comfortable working with Dr. Galea, but that the doctor did not give him HGH or mention it. Woods said that he was ready to cooperate with any investigation, but that he was not asked to appear for questioning as of that time.

In all Tiger Woods did an incredible job of "manning up" to what happened and admitted that he still has "a long way to go." He's rediscovered meditation and says he does it with his Mom as part of his effort to "keep centered." But what was interesting was this comment:

"Winning Golf Championships is not what life is all about."

Tiger Woods said he's at The Maters "to win it", but again family is now more important to him and he says the period of telling lies and feeling the need to tell a lie is behind him.

While a number of questions were asked, no one asked questions about the allegations that came out in various gossip publications, from the alleged $10 million he gave to Rachel Uchitel to the public requests for specific apology by some of Tiger Woods mistresses.

On the matter of Tiger Woods on the Golf course for The Masters and the idea that he needs to be more "under control", Tiger said, "I'm actually going to try to not get as hot when I play. But when I'm not as hot I'm not as exuberant either."

That part, I really don't care about. Frankly, and no disrespect to the great Tom Watson, who made the observations about Tiger Woods on course behavior and how it could be better, that's Tiger. It's part of the man who became the World's Greatest Golfer. I hope he keeps the fist-pump in his game, but not the four-letter words. Well, OK. One or two.

People are ready to see Tiger Woods play Golf.

More on this today and through an incredible week in sports.

Stay tuned.

NCAA Championship Game 2010 time is 9:21 PM ET (CBS)

NCAA Championship Game 2010 game time is 9:21 PM EST, 6:21 PM PST on CBS. It's Duke v. Butler. Who will win? This corner's going for the upset in picking the Butler University Bulldogs to beat the Duke Blue Devils for the NCAA Championship Title.

The reason is that we're not about to watch a seven-game series, or even the best of five-games, as is done in the NBA. We're watching one game for all the marbles. Butler may not be the better team than Duke in a series stretch, but Butler just has to be better than Duke for one game and for 40 minutes. That's it.

It really is the ultimate David v. Goliath story. But what's interesting is Duke winning seem to be such a forgone conclusion, even teenagers are picking Duke. I was watching the Red Sox / Yankees game at Jillian's Restaurant after WonderCon on Easter Sunday (yes, I stayed here while Mom went on a well-deserved trip), and a family from New York sat next to me while the game was on. Their two teenagers were massive Yankees fans, but also major Duke backers. They even want to attend Duke!

How about that? 13 years old, and already they've picked the college and the position: small forward.

Who do you think will win?

Take the poll:

More fun polls on pollsb.com

Facebook: how our patterns of social networking can reflect one's psychological functioning

If you’ve ever felt annoyed, amused, baffled, or disturbed by the various ways people use social networking sites such as Facebook, this article is for you.

“Can you believe she posted that status update/picture?” “Why would he write that on my wall, where everyone can see it?” “Why do people do that on Facebook, with no concern for how awkward or irritating it is for other people to see?” “I can’t take it anymore. I’m unfriending this person!”

These are actual statements I’ve heard from people, in frustration towards others’ differences in personal boundaries on social networking sites such as Facebook. Quite often we see stark contrasts in the social judgment of our friends, family members, co-workers and acquaintances as they reveal themselves in various ways on Facebook. If we look closely, we can begin to understand these differences in social judgment (as well as our responses to them) as a reflection of our psychological functioning. The following list serves to capture a just few of the ways people behave and react to differences in social networking patterns.


Actual example from a Facebook user*:

Status update: “I’m sorry FB…but I’m the luckiest woman in the world to be having multiple orgasms instead of having to fake it like my girlfriends…” (boyfriend chimes in with a response post, stating “I bring my A-game for you baby”) (*source is confidential)

How much do we share? Facebook is essentially a place to share- what we do, how we look, what we like/dislike, etc. If you’re not comfortable with learning personal details about someone else’s life online, then Facebook is likely not for you. Yet the degree to which an average Facebook user observes private matters via posts and pictures can vary from an enjoyable opportunity to catch up with others, to unsettling, or even offensive. Facebook users that push the boundaries of social etiquette are particularly controversial. When people share highly intimate or sensationalized information on Facebook, they may revel in shocking their audience and crave attention from others, whether good or bad. This may come from an underlying need to ‘stand out’ as special and different. Or perhaps it is an unwillingness to recognize that others might be offended by their display of private details in a widely public arena.

How much do we observe? Most of us have probably spent more time than we’d like to admit looking at others’ pictures, or perusing through someone’s wall on Facebook. In some instances, we may not know all of our Facebook friends in such a way that would afford this much access to their personal information. Yet our curiosity compels us to peek, perhaps as a means to increase feeling connected, or closer to people. Or in some cases, we feel compelled to pry in order to compare ourselves to others (regardless of how well we know someone) as a way to judge our own success or happiness. This addictive quality keeps Facebook's typical user on the site for an average of 169 minutes a month according to ComScore. Compare that with Google News, where the average reader spends 13 minutes a month checking up on the world, or the New York Times website, which holds on to readers for a mere ten minutes a month.

How much space do we take up? We’ve all had the experience of opening up our Facebook News Feed, and found that certain people take up an exorbitant amount of space through higher frequencies of sharing. Some of us perceive this as social entitlement, which can drive us to feel annoyed, resentful and even superior to those who openly ‘ask for our attention.’ This can feel especially irritating when other people share strong opinions or make lifestyle choices that are different from our own. How much space we take (or don’t take) on Facebook may reflect our expectation of the attention we feel we deserve from others.

Does Facebook allow us to be someone different than in our everyday life? Online interactions, as opposed to face-to-face interactions may allow or encourage some people to be more confrontational, racier, sexier, more militant, or melodramatic than might be acceptable in their daily life. Adopting new behaviors or personas via Facebook can feel liberating, without the discomfort of facing people’s immediate reactions to a stronger display of personality. We may gain the sympathy and/or support that we may not have (but want) in our everyday lives.

At it’s best, Facebook is a social opportunity that allows us to share our lives with others, support our friends, family and acquaintances with the happenings of their daily experiences, and actively expand our social connections. Yet, to others it can feel like a chaotic free-for-all that invites people to bend social rules of etiquette.

When it comes to Facebook, everyone seems to have an opinion. What’s yours? Leave comments on my page, Dr. Christina Villarreal with anecdotes that capture your experience of Facebook. I, for one, would love to read them!

Donovan McNabb traded: did Eagles get Michael Vick as racial cover-up?

The Philadelphia Eagles trading Donovan McNabb to the Washington Redskins is still a head-scratcher as he's in the same division.

But now that Donovan McNabb is gone so soon after the Eagles worked to get Quarterback Michael Vick on the field after Vick's release from prison after his illegal dog fighting work, this blogger has to ask the question:

Was the Philadelphia Eagles effort to get Michael Vick a plan to have a black quarterback on staff then trade Donovan McNabb, who's black, just so no one can say "The Eagles trade of Donovan McNabb was racist; they just didn't want a black star in Philadelphia?" If that was the case, here's betting Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who's also black, would stop going to the games, and Philadelphia would be a racially divided town.

As wild as the idea seems, the more I wrap my mind around how the Eagles think and the "cover-up" needed to cleanly pull off a dumb trade like sending Donovan McNabb to the Washington Redskins, the more it is logical that this was their thinking.

The Eagles trading McNabb has been in the public conversation for about a year, but no one thought they would actually do it. And just two months ago, Eagles Head Coach Andy Reid said McNabb was their quarterback.

But when Vick came in last year, the questions started about McNabb's future, and added to the trade talks. But again, no one believed the Eagles would get rid of a winner like McNabb and the face of the franchise.

But they did, and no one claimed it was due to race because the Eagles could then point to Michael Vick.

I'm willing to bet I'm right.

Stay tuned.

Donovan McNabb to Redskins trade gauche for Philadelphia Eagles

Related searches: mcnabb, donovan mcnabb, mcnabb trade, mcnabb traded to redskins, mcnabb trade rumors, andy reid mcnabb, Kyle Shanahan, Mike Shanahan, gauche, Easter Sunday

Now former Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback Donovan McNabb goes to a Washington Redskins team that got him for a steal and just may have got itself a ticket to Super Bowl XXXXV In Dallas in 2011. In obtaining Donovan McNabb without having to part with its 4th pick in the first round, the Washington Redskins can now add two more playmakers to a team that was sorely in need of new ones.

But the Philadelphia Eagles trade of Donovan McNabb to the Washington Redskins was called the dumbest in NFL history  in this space by a team with a quarterback of that level of talent. Let's return to those reasons stated, and add some more.

Let's now say it's gauche. That's French for lacking in social graces, and crudely made and done.

The McNabb trade is gauche for several reasons: first, the Eagles traded their six-time pro-bowl quarterback to a team they play twice each year, and did it on Easter Sunday. That's a holy day of giving thanks for the return of Jesus Christ. It's also a day not to release news that one's going to get rid of someone.

Second, the Eagles sent McNabb to a team that will play an offense almost like the one he played in for 11 years. new Washington Redskins Head Coach Mike Shanahan knows the same Bill Walsh West Coast Offense that Andy Reid coached to Donovan McNabb for all those years.

Donovan McNabb will have no "adjustment" time to worry about on the field. He can just step in and play.

Third, Donovan McNabb knows the Philadelphia Eagles Defense like the back of his hand because he practiced against them for over a decade. On other other hand, the Eagles have no idea what the Washington Redskins will do on offense because they're a new organization.

In other words, there's no tape on the Washington Redskins offense under Mike Shanahan and his son and offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan. Yes, Kyle Shanahan comes from the Houston Texans, but that does not translate to predictable offensive tendencies because he's got different personnel to work with at Washington.

Fourth, the Eagles insulted Donovan by trading him for a second round pick to a division rival that plays the same offensive design, in effect saying "We don't think you're good. In fact, you're so bad we'll send you to our division rival because we know you can't beat us."

That's just plain stupid.

The Eagles just penciled in two losses for the 2010 season at the hands of The Washington Redskins. Kevin Kolb is not the Eagles quarterback of the future, even if Andy Reid says he is. Michael Vick, who's an even better passer, will press Kolb for the starting job because he has something to prove.

If Andy Reid doesn't start Vick, people will wonder what's wrong with Coach Reid.

Donovan McNabb to Redskins trade steal for Washington

Related searches:
mcnabb, donovan mcnabb, mcnabb trade, mcnabb traded to redskins, mcnabb trade rumors, andy reid mcnabb

Now former Philadelphia Eagles Quarterback Donovan McNabb goes to a Washington Redskins team that got him for a steal and just may have got itself a ticket to Super Bowl XXXXV In Dallas in 2011. In obtaining Donovan McNabb without having to part with its 4th pick in the first round, the Washington Redskins can now add two more playmakers to a team that was sorely in need of new ones.

With the 4th pick, the Redskins are in perfect position to draft Clemson Running Back CJ Spiller, who blazed in the 40-yard dash posting a 4.27 time. He's widely touted as the 2010 NFL Draft's version of Tennessee Titans Running Back Chris Johnson: a game breaker and a back that can spell Clinton Portis, who played just eight games in 2009, or be part of a dangerous one-two punch with Portis.

At wide receiver she The skins do lack depth, but can fill that with the draft and free agency. On defense they got Cornerback Philip Buchanon and last year landed Pro Bowl defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth.

The Washington Redskins offensive blocking problems were more an issue of scheme and coaching than personnel. They'll be better in 2010, but also unpredicatable. There's no book on this new team and that gives Donovan McNabb a massive advantage.

Stay tuned.