Steve is the key figure in the long legal battle between the American Oil Company and what Donziger has claimed were Ecuador's indigenous people, but what has been reveled to be Ecuador itself, including Ecuador's President Rafael Correa.
As revealed in this blogger's last post on the Chevron Ecuador case, outtakes from the movie Crude, which was released this year and about the plaintiff's claims that Chevron caused environmental damage to the Ecuador part of the Amazon Delta (whereas Chevron maintains that they did substantial remediation work and have not produced oil there since 1992, turning over operations to the state's oil company), revealed a person who planned a way to intimidate and bully the Ecuador court.
Donziger openly talked of using paid "armies" of Ecuadorians to harass the Ecuador judge, and is on record as having conversations with President Correa and executives from the state oil company called Petroecuador. Thus, contrary to the assertions of AmazonWatch, Ecuador has been a party in the lawsuit from day one.
Here's what Donziger said at one point:
"We have concluded that we need to do more, politically, to control the court, to pressure the court. We believe they make decisions based on who they fear the most, not based on what the laws should dictate. So, what we want to do is to take over the court with a massive protest that we haven't done since the first day of the trial, back in October of 2003. Remember all those people on the street? ... It's a huge effort, it costs money. Not that much actually, but, few thousand dollars, to get everyone in for a day. ... But it — it's — it's a critically important moment, because we want to send a message to the court that, 'don't fuck with us anymore — not now, and not — not later, and never."
Legal observers have called Donziger's actions "criminal."
Judge Says Importance Of Discovery Is "High"
This is what Judge Kaplan wrote in the order, which was provided by blogger Bob McCarty and you can see here (link):
In view of the facts that (1) the Individual Petitioners are facing a preliminary hearing in the criminal proceeding in Ecuador on November 10, 2010 and (2) the Lago Agrio plaintiffs are seeking to move the Ecuadorian civil litigation to judgment as quickly as possible,4 petitioners have an urgent need for any discovery to which they are entitled here. The Court therefore now rules in this summary form on the motions to quash with the understanding that more extensive findings and conclusions will follow as promptly as the Court’s other responsibilities permit.
The Court has had the benefit of extensive evidentiary submissions, legal briefs, and oral argument. It has had an opportunity to review the Crude outtakes, which are extraordinarily
Donziger and the Lago Agrio plaintiffs rejected this Court’s suggestion that proceedings in Ecuador be stayed pending a more extended determination of these motions.
On the basis of those materials as well as the extensive evidentiary submissions, briefs,
and argument, the Court makes the following findings and conclusions. First. The Section 1782 statutory requirements are satisfied, and the discretionary factors weigh in favor of discovery.
The reasons they do so are at least as strong as those which led to the same conclusion in Chevron I, where this Court granted the applications for Section 1782 subpoenas for the Crude outtakes. Moreover, the Individual Petitioners seek documents and testimony from Donziger that are highly relevant to their pending Ecuadorian criminal proceeding while the relevance of the evidence sought by Chevron is even clearer than was the case with the outtakes.
The government of Ecuador is prosecuting the Individual Petitioners for alleged fraud in connection the Settlement and Final Release agreements among Texaco, the Government of Ecuador, and Petroecuador, Ecuador’s state-owned oil company. These same charges were dropped several years ago after Ecuadorian prosecutors concluded that there was no basis for criminal liability.5
The outtakes, however, depict Donziger, along with others acting for the Lago Agrio plaintiffs, describing their campaign for a renewed criminal investigation of the same allegations6 for the purposes of (1) undermining and defeating the agreements to bolster their claim that Chevron is liable notwithstanding the prior settlement and (2) exerting pressure on Chevron by prosecuting
its personnel.
The Prosecutor General changed course and reopened the criminal investigation in light of new evidence7 within days of the completion of the ostensibly neutral and impartial “global assessment” for the civil litigation. This “global assessment” is the central focus of the discovery that the Individual Petitioners and Chevron seek. The Lago Agrio court appointed an ostensibly independent expert to submit a neutral report.8
The outtakes, however, contain substantial evidence that Donziger and others (1) were involved in ex parte contacts with the court to obtain appointment of the expert,9 (2) met secretly with the supposedly neutral and impartial expert prior to his appointment10 and outlined a detailed work plan for the plaintiffs’ own consultants,11 and (3) wrote some or all of the expert’s final report that was submitted to the Lago Agrio court and the Prosecutor General’s Office,12
supposedly as the neutral and independent product of the expert.
In these circumstances, the outtakes and other evidence demonstrate at least a significant need for the discovery sought by the Individual Petitioners and Chevron – discovery concerning, inter alia, the role of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs in selecting and procuring the appointment of the expert, in writing his report, and in procuring the reopening of criminal charges against the Individual Petitioners. The likely relevance of the discovery sought is high.
Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment