Chevron P.R. Campaign Gets It Wrong Again

Last week Chevron's P.R. mavens were at it again – this time spinning out a number of carefully edited and selected outtakes from the documentary "Crude" to as part of an all-out assault on the lawyers for the 30,000 Ecuadorians suing the company for destroying an area of the rainforest the size of Rhode Island. Chevron is trying to intimidate the lawyers by using the edited film clips as the basis for fraud charges that are a cynical and desperate 11^th-hour attempt to escape liability by any means necessary.

(Recently, Chevron got access to the private film outtakes of celebrated documentarian Joe Berlinger from his award-winning documentary "Crude" – in a highly criticized, unprecedented assault on the First Amendment. After a long court fight, Berlinger surrendered the film to Chevron after the company promised not to use it for any purpose other than litigation. Take a look at this post here.)

Chevron has claimed that the video outtakes show that the plaintiffs' lawyers have manufactured the lawsuit against the company out of "smoke and mirrors" that are "all bullshit" and are simply an extortion racket to get money from the oil company. Over the last week the company's lawyers and public relations specialists have been working bloggers and journalists to try to push this view as far and wide as possible. Among Chevron p.r. firms is Hill & Knowlton, which used the same playbook for the tobacco industry, and Creative Response Concepts, which invented the Swift Boat ads that targeted John Kerry.

Of course, Chevron's not telling the truth about what the video outtakes do show. In fact, any viewing of the actual film footage – and not Chevron's edited, hand-picked, out-of-context scenes - shows exactly the opposite. Even the concept where the plaintiffs' attorney is making the comments Chevron has zeroed in on is in the context of a methodical outlay of the massive amount of the scientific evidence proving the company's guilt for creating the world's worst environmental disaster. Chevron has not disputed this – but it has refused to release the entire scenes, or the unedited video on which it was basing its public relations assault on the plaintiffs.

Nor, of course, does Chevron publicize the hundreds of hours of outtakes provided by Berlinger that point clearly to its own misconduct in Ecuador.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. Chevron has a long history of playing fast and loose with video, using misleading and mischaracterized film footage to try to score public relations points. Almost a year ago, Chevron spliced and diced footage that it claimed showed a bribery scheme in Ecuador – a claim that was later completely discredited as a company "dirty tricks" operation. Before that, Chevron paid a former CNN anchor, Gene Randall, to produce a video about the lawsuit that appeared to be a legitimate "investigative reporting" newscast, presumably to trick viewers into thinking they were watching an independent report on the issue.
The company has proven it will stop at nothing to try to find a way to evade its liability in Ecuador – earlier this week The Atlantic reported that a freelance reporter for the publication was flown to Columbia and offered $20,000 to go undercover on behalf of the company.

For all of the efforts to attack the lawsuit, it is interesting what Chevron has not done: focus on the evidence that clearly prove its responsibility for the worst oil-related contamination on the planet.

After more than 17 years of litigation, Chevron has not seriously disputed the scientific evidence that conclusively shows it is responsible for creating the world's worst oil-related disaster. In the Ecuador trial, more than 64,000 chemical sampling results – 80% of which were provided by Chevron's own scientists – and a 200,000 page trial record has produced a mountain of evidence showing the extent of the contamination. The evidence is clear: over 26 years of operations, from 1964-1990, Chevron produced a legacy of environmental destruction that is at least twice as large as the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico in sheer size.

It is time for Chevron and its bloggers to stop misrepresenting film clips, quit the public relations battle, and take a look at the hard science that proves it is responsible for the horrible contamination.

Read More

Chevron Paying Whistleblower Diego Borja to Keep Quiet About Evidence Tampering

Several weeks ago, the indigenous and farmer communities revealed new information that Chevron "cooked" evidence in the Lago Agrio trial in order to avoid a judgment in the long-running lawsuit – and that the oil company was providing financial support to whistleblower Diego Borja to prevent him from going public with the company's fraud. Among Chevron's gross misdeeds in Ecuador, according to Borja: the oil giant directed Borja to create dummy companies in Ecuador to make it appear that a laboratory Chevron used to process soil and water samples during the environmental trial was independent, when in fact it was controlled by the company.

The Plaintiffs have long contended that Chevron was intentionally and fraudulently using bogus lab testing procedures to artificially lower the amount of contamination reported to the Court.

Borja, an Ecuadorian who was responsible for handling soil and water samples for Chevron during the environmental trial, was captured on audiotapes provided by childhood friend Santiago Escobar as saying Chevron "cooked" the evidence in the trial, and that he [Borja] has "correspondence about things you can't even imagine, dude….I can't talk about them here, dude, because I'm afraid, but they're things that can make the Amazons win this just like that (snapping his fingers)." (Click here for more information. See Transcript 4, October 1, 2009 p. 3, 7-9)

Borja was quoted demanding a "business partner(ship)" with Chevron that would pay off "like a big brass ring" in exchange for not turning over the evidence to the authorities. (See Transcript 2, October 1, 2009, pg. 6) He also bragged to Escobar, in reference to his work for Chevron, that "crime does pays." (See Transcript 1, October 1, 2009 p. 6)

At the time of the recording, Borja was (and apparently still is) receiving payment from Chevron for a number of expenses. Some might call this "hush money" to ensure Borja doesn't sing with too sweet a melody about Chevron's fraud in Ecuador. Among Chevron's payments to Borja:

A monthly stipend: On the tapes, Borja said that he made $10,000 per month while living in Ecuador and that Chevron is paying him an amount that allows him to live at the same level in the United States. Given that the cost of living in Ecuador is much lower than the U.S., the amount Chevron is now paying Borja is probably a healthy multiple of $10,000.

Re-location costs: In June 2009, Chevron obtained visas from the U.S. government and paid expenses to re-locate Borja and his family from Ecuador to San Ramon, California, Chevron's headquarters. Borja's wife, Sara Portilla, worked for Chevron for several years and apparently ran a Chevron laboratory that processed samples from the trial, even though Chevron had told the court the laboratory was independent.

Legal fees: Chevron has told reporters the company is covering Borja's legal expenses, including the fees of his criminal defense attorney, Chris Arguedes. Arguedes is a well-known criminal defense lawyer who represents Barry Bonds, among other notables. Paying for Borja's lawyer ensures that Chevron will limit the chance he has to be questioned by authorities about Chevron's own role in the fraud.

Housing: Borja said on the tapes Chevron is paying for a fully-furnished $6,000 per month house with a swimming pool in a gated community in San Ramon.

Car: Chevron is making a Saturn SUV available for Borja and Portilla to drive.

Security: Chevron is providing a security detail for Borja.

From living in Ecuador to living the high life in California – for Diego Borja, it is clear that crimes does pay.

(Click here <http://chevrontoxico.com/news-and-multimedia/borja-report/> for more information. See Transcript 3, October 1, 2009, pgs. 12-15)

Chevron has refused to comment on Borja's statements.

Read More

Today’s Bribery Tale Very Different from the One Chevron Told Seven Weeks Ago…

The tale that Chevron told about how two men secretly recorded a bribery scheme in Ecuador is a very different tale today from the one Chevron unveiled seven weeks ago on YouTube and through the news media. Chevron's attempt to use the bribery scheme to derail a potential $27 billion lawsuit for oil contamination in the Ecuadorian rainforest could turn out to be as big of a corporate scandal as the pretexting debacle at Hewlett Packard.

Below is a quick comparison of Chevron's original version of the story and what we know today. For more information, take a look at this complete list of Chevron's unanswered questions about the purported bribery scandal, and this compilation of media reports about the purported bribery scandal.

What Chevron Said Seven Weeks Ago:

• Patricio Garcia is a government party official who met at the party's headquarters office in Quito with Borja and Hansen
  

  
  

• Diego Borja is [only] a former Chevron logistics contractor
  

  
  

• Wayne Hansen, is an American business man who was looking for remediation work in Ecuador.
  

  
  

• Borja and Hansen have not received any payment for secretly taping Garcia in meetings.
  

What We Know Today:

• Garcia is not even a registered party member, much less a party official. Government party officials know of no formal role Garcia has played with the party, except to hand out flyers or cater events.
  
  
• Garcia, Borja and Hansen did not meet at the party's headquarters office; they met at a house owned by Garcia and at Borja's office.
  
  
• Garcia said Borja's office is in the same building as Chevron's legal team in Quito and that Borja's family owns the office building.
  
  
• Borja is not just a "former logistics contractor" for Chevron. He worked on the lawsuit for Chevron, helping to obtain soil samples for contamination testing as recently as March, only a few weeks before the first meeting with Garcia was secretly recorded.
  
  
• If Hansen is a businessman with an expertise in oil clean-up work and who owns his own remediation company, he does not advertise his services. (Chevron has confirmed that the only "Wayne Hansen" listed on any internet search engine is not the same Wayne Hansen who filmed the meetings.)
  
  
• Nowhere on the video recordings do any government officials, the plaintiffs or the judge discuss or accept a bribe.
  
  
• Despite what Chevron said about not paying for their services, Chevron paid Borja relocation expenses for him and his family to move to the US and for "interim support." Chevron has offered to pay both men's legal fees for the two top criminal defense lawyers Borja and Hansen have hired. The lawyers work in San Francisco, only a few miles from Chevron's headquarters in San Ramon.
  

Note that Borja's attorney, Cristina Arguedas, represented Hewlett Packard's former general counsel Ann Baskin in the pretexting scandal.

Chevron should pay attention - they may end up needing Arguedas' help as well…

Read More

LA Times Editorial Blasts Chevron

Last Friday an editorial blasted Chevron's newest tricky legal maneuver: an attempt to freeze out the rights of more than 30,000 indigenous people by moving the trial (that they asked for!) into a secret international arbitration. The editorial clearly lays out what Chevron is attempting – read on:

latimes.com

Editorial

Chevron's shifty shifting of venue

The oil giant, facing a $27-billion damage claim in a pollution case brought by natives in Ecuador, shops the case to The Hague in a bid to escape liability.

October 2, 2009

When Chevron was in a New York courtroom battling a lawsuit by thousands of indigenous Ecuadoreans, it argued that the case rightly belonged in their country. But now that the company is poised to lose in the Andean nation and could be assessed as much as $27 billion in damages, it says Ecuador isn't the right place either. Last week, the oil giant shopped the case to yet another court, filing a claim at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague.

Chevron has long maintained that it would appeal an adverse decision, which is entirely understandable. But this action is different. By going to The Hague before a verdict is issued in Ecuador, the company shuts outthe private citizens who brought the suit and who have no standing there. This reframes the case as between Ecuador and Chevron, and if it succeeds -- shifting liability from the company to the Ecuadorean government -- it could have a chilling effect on people all over the world who are engaged in legal battles with multinational corporations.

Let's be clear: The case wasn't brought by Ecuador. It was filed by people who say they have suffered serious personal harm, illness and environmental damage as a result of oil operations in their homelands. From the very beginning, Chevron has been trying to turn the focus away from these people and to pin the responsibility for the pollution on the government of Ecuador. After the suit was filed, the company got a waiver from Ecuador releasing it from all claims by the government. But the waiver didn't successfully stop third-party claims. So, in 2004, the company asked a federal court in New York to force Ecuador's state-owned oil company to indemnify it for any judgment in the case. The court rejected that claim in 2007, and in 2008, a three-judge panel for the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling.

Now Chevron, which once agreed to abide by the Ecuadorean court's ruling, says it has no choice but to seek an international remedy in The Hague because it cannot get a fair trial in the Amazon. To bolster that contention, it recently released videotapes that it says depict the judge, Juan Nunez Sanabria, prematurely declaring Chevron's guilt. The tapes are unclear as to Nunez's intent, and he maintains that no impropriety occurred. He recused himself from the case to avoid becoming a distraction but has since been reinstated.

The real problem for Chevron, however, isn't jurisdictional or procedural. Nor is it about biased justice in New York or Ecuador. The issue is the devastating contamination in the Ecuadorean Amazon, the individuals whose lives have been affected and the importance of accountability. No matter where this case is tried, that's not going to disappear.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Read More

Good comment on the Washington Times Story

Oh yeah, also – I saw this comment on today's Washington Times story about Chevron in Ecuador. Thought it did a good job laying out the factual problems with the story.

Take a look:

The article clearly shows how weak Chevron has become in Washington. Even the U.S. Chamber of Commerce seems to be down about the company's prospects. That said, there is inaccurate information that needs to be clarified:

*The article reports that Chevron says the legal case was moved from U.S. court (where it was filed in 1993) to Ecuador at the request of the plaintiffs. This is incorrect. The case was moved to Ecuador at Chevron's request after the company submitted ten sworn affidavits from experts claiming the courts in Ecuador were fair. Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 142 F.Supp.2d 534 (S.D.N.Y.2001). Once the evidence started to show Chevron's culpability, the company began to claim the Ecuador courts it had previously praised as fair were suddenly unfair.

*The article indicates that the plaintiffs "produced" a documentary film (called Crude, by Emmy award-winning director Joe Berlinger). The plaintiffs had nothing to do with the production of the film, which was made independently.

*The article indicates that lawsuit was filed by only 50 Ecuadorean residents. These individuals, however, represent a class of 30,000 Ecuadorean residents. The damages are almost entirely for environmental clean-up of what many experts consider the worst oil-related contamination on earth – one that resulted from the dumping of 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the rainforest.

Read More

Chevron’s Washington Tricks Exposed

The Washington Times ran an article today exposing Chevron's strategy for dealing with their huge legal liability in Ecuador: try to get the U.S. government to force the government of Ecuador to sweep the case under the rug. Apparently, Chevron has decided that they can't win the lawsuit and so they're trying the good ol' extortion strategy: threaten Ecuador's economy to force the Ecuadorean government to kill the case. Basically, Chevron is trying desperately to get the U.S. to cancel (or not renew) the Andean Trade Preferences Act unless the Ecuadorean government forces the court system to dismiss the lawsuit. So much for corporate responsibility, the rule of law, or having your day in court: around here, if Chevron doesn't think they can win, they just try to cheat.

Thankfully, as the Washington Times article clearly illustrates, nobody is buying what Chevron is selling (well, other than oil and gas – the company had a record year last year, making over $24 billion in profit. Unfortunately, while they were making money hand over fist the contamination they left behind was just getting worse, and causing more people to get sick). The oil company already tried this political tactic once - and failed miserably, losing a huge lobbying battle in Washington and diminishing whatever credibility the company had in Washington. And this time, even Chevron's allies, such as the Chamber of Commerce and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), aren't defending the company, distancing themselves from the company and saying that this tactic just isn't going to work.

So why is Chevron trying to get the U.S. government to strong-arm the Ecuadorean government for them? Well, it looks like they're just getting desperate. The Chevron officials admitted that they expect the Ecuadorean court hearing the case to "file a judgment against them on behalf of tens of thousands of Ecuadorean Indians." And since the best estimate of what that judgment will be is the $27 billion assessment of damages made by the independent expert appointed by the court in the case, it's no wonder that Chevron is starting to panic.

Read More