Boutrous, Ted
==
===
YMAIL 2 24ExxonKnews
Chicago last week brought the newest lawsuit against Big Oil companies for spreading disinformation about the climate-warming hazards of burning fossil fuels — adding the third largest city in the U.S. to the growing list of state and local governments pushing for oil and gas majors to be held accountable in court.
The case charges BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, and the American Petroleum Institute with conspiring together and through front groups to run “tobacco-industry-style campaigns to deceive and mislead the public about the damaging nature of their fossil fuel products.” The fallout of those campaigns, according to the complaint, was a long delay in climate action that has come at an increasingly unbearable cost to Chicago residents — particularly in its low income neighborhoods and communities of color.
City officials say their legal action is necessary for the city to help shift the financial burden of adapting to climate disasters away from those communities and back onto the companies most responsible.
“There is no justice without accountability,” said Mayor Brandon Johnson in a statement. “From the unprecedented poor air quality that we experienced last summer to the basement floodings that our residents on the West Side experienced, the consequences of this crisis are severe, as are the costs of surviving them. That is why we are seeking to hold these Defendants accountable.”
Ted Boutrous of law firm Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, an attorney for Chevron and chief architect of Big Oil's legal arguments in these cases, said in a statement that “addressing climate change requires a coordinated international policy response, not meritless local litigation over lawful and essential energy production.”
The city is charging the companies with 10 counts of failure to warn, negligence, fraud, conspiracy, and public nuisance, and it asks for compensatory damages and the disgorgement of profits made in the course of the industry’s fraud, among other remedies. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Cook County court, also requests a jury trial, where the companies could face more evidence of their deception gained through the discovery process.
That deception, Chicago argues, includes the oil majors’ ongoing campaigns to “falsely present themselves as corporate leaders in the fight against climate change, claiming to invest substantially in low-emission technologies and zero-emission energy sources, while their business continues to be overwhelmingly focused on fossil fuel production and sales.”
As one example, the complaint cites a recent BP ad targeting Illinois Facebook users that claims “We agree - the world needs fewer emissions. That's why we're working to make all forms of energy cleaner and better.” BP is simultaneously reneging on its climate pledges and increasing its production of oil and gas.
“At the end of the day, the climate crisis that we’re enduring was known by fossil fuel companies — they were warned decades ago by their own scientists of the potentially severe or even catastrophic consequences of their approach,” said Chicago Alderman Matt Martin, who applauded city leaders’ decision to file suit. “These companies should no longer be allowed to shift the burden of paying for the impacts resulting from that conduct onto Chicagoans.”
The harm to Chicago from climate change
It might be difficult to imagine what climate change looks like for a Midwestern city far from rising seas and hurricanes — but Chicago is susceptible to a spate of climate threats.
Chicago’s complaint cites more frequent and intense storms, flooding, droughts, shoreline erosion, toxic algae blooms in Lake Michigan, and extreme heat events like a four-day heat wave in 1995 that killed more than 700 Chicagoans.
The 1995 heat wave was a “watershed moment,” said Daniel Horton, who leads the Climate Change Research Group at Northwestern University. “Since that time the city has done a number of things to improve community resilience, but we expect more heatwaves in the future as the world continues to warm — so we have to constantly update our policies and prepare for extreme heat,” he added.
Many victims of that heat wave were elderly, low-income, and Black, residing in apartments without air conditioning. Those groups are still most at risk from extreme heat and air pollution in Chicago, which can coincide to produce “profound public health consequences,” said Horton, like they did when wildfire smoke from Canada gave the city the worst air quality in the world in June. The same demographics were also hit hardest during a severe rain event in July, which wreaked havoc on Chicago’s West Side, and are most susceptible to the city’s more-regular flooding.
“When you’re talking about the legacy of environmental racism all across the city, too often with regard to both severe weather and other aspects of the climate crisis, the communities bearing the brunt of that devastation are lower income communities of color,” said Alderman Martin.
Chicago is an “incredibly segregated city,” explained Horton, where Black and Hispanic communities are far more likely to live in places that are hotter, have poorer air quality, and are most flood-prone. The city can make decisions to ease the burden on those communities — like figuring out “where to increase our green infrastructure, building more of a green canopy and reducing the heat island effect, deciding where to build cooling centers in neighborhoods that have more vulnerable citizens or people without access to air conditioning or the ability to pay for it,” he said. The more the city invests in community adaptation, the higher the price tag — in its complaint, the city said it is already spending $188 million on climate projects in low-income communities — and that’s the kind of thing Chicago wants oil companies to help pay for.
“There’s surviving, and then there’s thriving,” Horton said. “I like to think surviving isn’t the goal.”
“Another powerful player”
More than 25% of all Americans are now represented by governments taking oil companies to court for climate deception. Chicago’s lawsuit brings “another powerful player into the game,” remarked Pat Parenteau, an environmental law professor at Vermont Law School.
“There’s strength in numbers, and the more entities like Chicago and California that have the resources to do battle, the better, from the plaintiffs’ side of it,” Parenteau said.
Chicago is suing as similar cases across the country move toward trial in state court. Massachusetts' consumer fraud case against Exxon is currently in the pre-trial discovery phase, and the City and County of Honolulu is in the process of agreeing what discovery will look like once it starts. Delaware is requesting that the state’s Supreme Court review a lower court’s ruling regarding which parts of its case can be heard at trial. In Italy, the trial for twelve Italian citizens’ lawsuit against oil giant Eni just kicked off.
Parenteau had a long list of reasons why new communities like Chicago would choose to sue now — growing evidence of what the companies knew and how they lied, more attribution science linking specific companies’ emissions to specific damages, the state of California filing suit, plaintiffs winning the fight to keep their lawsuits in state court, and other legal successes against oil majors across the world.
Or it could be simpler than all that. “These cities are beginning to realize just how much money they’re facing to deal with climate effects, and the recalcitrance of the oil companies that are sitting on piles of money and making more every year,” he said. “Maybe it’s too much for them to ignore.”
Thanks for reading ExxonKnews!
===
---
ref 2
CLIMATEWIRE | In a win for local governments suing oil and gas majors over climate change, a federal appeals court Wednesday became the seventh to reject the industry’s bid to move a lawsuit to federal court.
In a unanimous ruling, three judges with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state of Connecticut, upholding a lower court decision that said the state’s lawsuit against Exxon Mobil should be heard in state court.
In a twist, the decision was written by Judge Richard Sullivan, who wrote a 2021 decision for the appeals court that found that New York City’s claims in a climate lawsuit were preempted by federal law.
The industry has relied on the 2021 ruling to argue that it represents a split among the courts. An industry attorney cited it as recently as Tuesday in an effort to get a similar case in Delaware dismissed.
But Sullivan, who called the Connecticut and New York lawsuits “very different” in oral arguments last September, noted in Wednesday’s opinion that the court was joining its sister circuits in rejecting the company’s request to move the cases.
Connecticut’s lawsuit is one of more than two dozen filed by municipalities that accuse the industry of lying to the public about the dangers of burning fossil fuels. The industry has sought to move the cases to federal court where producers believe they have a better chance to toss the cases under the Clean Air Act.
But Sullivan wrote that the Connecticut case presents a “total mismatch” between the business practices that Exxon Mobil argued were subject to federal control and the behavior that Connecticut is challenging.
Connecticut’s claims, Sullivan wrote, “ultimately concern neither extracting oil and gas nor burning them, but talking about what happens to the environment when they are burned.”
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong (D), who filed the case in 2020, welcomed the decision and said his office is ready to “aggressively prosecute” the lawsuit in state court.
“Our case is simple and strong — Exxon Mobil amassed billions of dollars in profits off a decadeslong campaign of lies, and they must be held accountable,” Tong said.
He called the case a “straightforward consumer deception case” and said it was built on the state’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, which was argued in cases involving the tobacco and opioid industries.
The industry said the decision “misses” the real issue.
“The nature of climate change, this whole litigation and the remedies that Connecticut and other jurisdictions seek are all beyond the scope of any state law,” said Phil Goldberg, special counsel to the Manufacturers’ Accountability Project, an initiative of the National Association of Manufacturers.
He argued that determining how best to address climate change is a “major national and international priority that cannot be decided piecemeal by state judges based on which companies each state or locality decides to sue.”
Sullivan, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, wrote that the Supreme Court has cautioned that judges should “be reluctant” to find the authority that “converts an ordinary state common law complaint into one stating a federal claim.”
And he added that the judges were “wholly unpersuaded by Exxon Mobil’s efforts to push the boundaries of the exceptions” it claimed.
He said the judges agreed with the lower court decision that found Connecticut accuses Exxon Mobil of lying to the state’s consumers and the “fact that the alleged lies were about the impacts of fossil fuels on the Earth’s climate is immaterial.”
He noted that the sides “vigorously dispute” whether federal pollution law is at play in the case. But he added the allegation that Exxon Mobil’s statements ran afoul of Connecticut’s “truth in advertising” laws, “have absolutely nothing to do with the federal common law of transboundary pollution.”
The company had argued the case should be heard in federal court because it leases oil drilling sites from the federal government and is subject to “myriad” federal regulations.
But the court was not convinced, with Sullivan writing that “Exxon Mobil has made this very argument to five of our sister circuits, all of which have squarely rejected it. We find their reasoning persuasive, and we now join them.”
Sullivan wrote that Exxon Mobil had argued the federal government had “significant control” over the means of oil and gas production during World War II.
“But World War II ended in 1945,” he wrote, adding that the conduct Connecticut cites dates to no earlier than the 1950s. “We are aware of no authority for the proposition that once a private company has acted under the close supervision of the federal government for some discrete period in its history, it may claim ‘acting-under’ status for the rest of time.”
He was joined in the case by Judge William Nardini, another Trump appointee, and Judge Myrna Pérez, an appointee of President Joe Biden.
The ruling comes as the Supreme Court earlier this year boosted a raft of similar cases by rejecting the oil industry’s latest efforts to derail them. Those rulings could pave the way for a flood of lawsuits against the industry to be heard in state courts from Maryland to Hawaii.
California earlier this month became the eighth and largest state to file a climate deception lawsuit.
The state of Delaware defended its lawsuit against the industry Tuesday in a three-hour hearing before Superior Court Judge Mary Miller Johnston.
Ted Boutrous, a partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who represents Chevron in a number of the climate liability cases, raised Sullivan’s 2021 opinion in the New York case, telling Johnston it “provides a road map” for her court and that federal law should govern the case.
He noted Delaware argues that the cases are different, but he insisted the cases contained “the very same allegations.”
Victor Sher of the law firm Sher Edling, who represented the state, said the New York lawsuit was based on a different liability standard.
---
4 23 email drilled
on Monday this week the Supreme Court finally weighed in on whether it would take up the jurisdictional argument that oil companies are making in multiple climate liability suits. The companies have been arguing for the past five years that these cases, brought on behalf of municipalities and states, are asking state courts for judgements that would impact federal policy and thus belong in state court. Attorneys representing state and local arguments have argued that their cases—which claim that oil companies' delay tactics on climate increased the cost of adaptation and thus the companies are liable for a portion of those costs—were appropriately filed in state court. Every circuit court has agreed, as has the Department of Justice, and now the Supreme Court as well.
"The companies' history of climate, deception, and misinformation, coupled with their unchecked fossil fuel production promotion, and so on, it makes them liable for at least some of the costs that these communities face, so that these costs don't fall entirely on the taxpayers." — Marco Simons, EarthRights International, attorney representing Boulder and other Colorado municipalities against oil companies.
| Marco Simons, EarthRights International | 0:16 • Click to play audio |
Suncor, a Canadian company whose U.S. subsidiary is headquartered in Colorado, is a defendant in the Boulder climate case.
It's big news, but what will it mean for these cases? Some of them, including Boulder, which was the case invoked in the initial petition to the Supreme Court, will go back to arguing against other motion-to-dismiss arguments in state court. But others, starting with Hawaii, will move towards trial and that's a really big deal because it means some of these cases will get into the phase of litigation oil companies have been trying their hardest to avoid: discovery. In civil cases, the discovery phase is when companies will be asked to hand over documents and make their executives available for depositions. The evidence gathered during discovery in these cases could spell trouble for the oil company defendants in multiple other cases, including ongoing fraud suits in Massachusetts and Minnesota, a RICO, or racketeering, case filed on behalf of Puerto Rican municipalities, and even international cases given that the majority of these companies operate globally.
"At this point, we're optimistic about moving forward and securing justice for our clients, who have been facing significant harms and costs due to the climate crisis while the oil companies, of course, continue to profit from their deception and misinformation." —Marco Simons, EarthRights International
[audio]
But of course, oil majors have not put all their eggs in the jurisdictional basket. As I've been writing about for years now, one of the key arguments they're making in these cases is a First Amendment argument. In broad strokes, the argument goes like this: anything they've ever said about climate was in the interest of shaping policy, which makes it political speech (or "petitioning speech" in legalese), and therefore protected. It was clear this was going to be the driving force of these cases when the oil company defendants appointed Chevron's attorney, Ted Boutrous with Gibson Dunn, as their spokesperson across the board. Boutrous is a renowned First Amendment attorney, and Gibson Dunn is the firm that brought and won the most famous corporate free speech in the country's history: Citizens United. And now, even as the broader jurisdictional argument seems to be dead in the water, oil companies have formulated another one: the First Amendment question in these cases is foundational, and is not something that state courts should be weighing in on.
That argument has already been briefed in multiple cases, and it's only a matter of time before it makes its way to the most pro-corporate Supreme Court this country has had in decades...maybe ever. In the meantime, cases will move forward, and it's possible that so many cases moving into discovery will prompt discussion of a tobacco-style settlement. But I wouldn't go counting those chickens just yet.
OOPS, IT WAS BALTIMORE
Karl Racine restarts 'Exxon knew' climate-fraud probe}:
Washington Times
https://www.washingtontimes.com › news › mar › ka...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/28/karl-racine-restarts-exxon-knew-climate-fraud-prob/)
Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Thursday, March 28, 2019
For three years, former New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s dream of nailing ExxonMobil for “climate fraud” has been stuck in neutral, but now the District is preparing to step on the gas.
D.C. Attorney General Karl A. Racine has solicited private legal counsel to work on an investigation — and potential litigation — against the world’s largest oil company on a contingency-fee basis. The request for bids ends Friday.
Despite its research, “Exxon has failed to inform consumers about the effects of its fossil fuel products on climate change,” said the solicitation. “Exxon has also engaged or funded efforts to mislead DC consumers and others about the potential impacts of climate change.”
Mr. Racine’s decision to pursue the climate-fraud strategy caught industry onlookers by surprise, given the decline of the coalition of 17 liberal attorneys general known as AGs United for Clean Power, unveiled amid much fanfare at a March 2016 event with former Vice President Al Gore.
So far only one state — New York — has filed a lawsuit. Massachusetts has been mired for years in a legal fight with Exxon over documents. The Virgin Islands attorney general retreated early on from his attempt to subpoena documents from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Mr. Schneiderman himself no longer leads the coalition after resigning his office abruptly last year over allegations of physically abusing four women. If other states investigated Exxon behind the scenes, they have yet to result in legal action.
“The timing is bizarre,” said Spencer Walrath, research director of Energy in Depth, a project of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Why now? So far Mr. Racine has offered no public insight into his decision-making, but as one of the AGs United for Clean Power — made up of 16 Democrats and one independent — he has supported the Massachusetts and New York investigations.
In 2016, he joined an amicus brief in support of Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey’s investigation. He also signed a 2017 letter objecting to congressional subpoenas against the New York and Massachusetts prosecutors.
“Passionate about protecting our environment? Join our team!” Mr. Racine wrote in a March 15 tweet. “Our office is seeking outside legal counsel to support OAG’s climate change work.”
Passionate about protecting our environment? Join our team!
Our office is seeking outside legal counsel to support OAG’s climate change work: https://t.co/ZMZpEdcEuk
— AG Karl A. Racine (@AGKarlRacine) March 15, 2019
Chris Horner, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, pointed out that the District’s Attorney General’s Office hired Sarah Kogel-Smucker last year as a “special assistant attorney general” paid for by the Bloomberg-funded State Energy & Environmental Impact Center at New York University, which places lawyers with state prosecutors to assist in “promoting clean energy.”
“A year later, one of the big reasons for bringing her on bears fruit: [the] DC OAG decides to hire an outside, plaintiffs’ firm to escalate the shakedown,” said Mr. Horner in an email.
A spokesman for the District’s Attorney General’s Office had no comment about a timetable. Under the solicitation, two lawyers and one paralegal would be contracted on a contingency basis, meaning they would be paid only if their work resulted in a monetary award, which Mr. Horner described as “unusual.”
Also drawing attention is a clause in the solicitation that says the contractor “may assign to a bank, trust company, or other financing institution funds due or to become due as a result of the performance of this contract.”
“In other words, a third party — like a hedge fund — can finance the contractor’s work in this investigation, allowing that entity rights to any winnings from the case,” said Mr. Walrath in a March 20 post. “The arrangement raises the possibility that wealthy entities or individuals supportive of the investigations against ExxonMobil, including the Rockefeller family, could directly fund and even profit from any eventual litigation.”
He cited comments by the Cato Institute’s Andrew Grossman in the Daily Caller, who said the arrangement “gives a whole new meaning to ‘policing for profit.’”
As climate litigation goes, the focus has shifted in the last year to lawsuits filed by municipalities and one state — Rhode Island — against major oil-and-gas companies seeking billions for climate-related mitigation efforts to infrastructure.
“Those costs involve building sea walls, implementing public-health programs, and taking other resiliency measures to protect the public and municipal property from rising sea levels, increased heat and precipitation, more frequent extreme weather, and other threats,” said the New York City appeal.
That legal avenue has its own potholes. Last year, federal judges threw out the public-nuisance lawsuits filed by New York City, San Francisco and Oakland, ruling that the climate-change debate should be resolved by the legislative and not judicial branch.
Both Oakland and San Francisco filed an appeal earlier this month with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, while New York City has filed an appeal in the 2nd Circuit.
Also gaining support from activists is litigation filed by children against federal and state governments demanding action on climate change. So far nine children’s lawsuits have been filed, and three of the state-level cases have been dismissed, according to InsideClimate News.
Valerie Richardson can be reached at vrichardson@washingtontimes.com.*}:
---
https://www.alternet.org/2021/02/rachel-maddow/
Far-right One America News must pay $258,391.50 in legal fees to MSNBC.
"A federal judge in California has ordered Herring Networks, the parent company of far-right conservative media organization One America News Network (OAN), to pay MSNBC and host Rachel Maddow $250,000 in attorney's fees stemming from a defamation lawsuit that was dismissed last year," Law & Crime reported Saturday.
"Herring in July 2019 filed a lawsuit against Maddow which claimed the liberal host had defamed OAN when she discussed reports that one of the network's contributors also worked for the Russia state news organization Sputnik. Maddow went on to state that OAN 'literally is paid Russian propaganda,' which OAN's parent company claimed was false and defamatory. Herring, the parent company, then filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $10 million,"Law & Crime explained. "Attorneys representing Maddow and MSNBC responded by filing a special motion to strike the case under California's Anti-Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (Anti-SLAPP) law."
U.S. District Judge Cynthia Bashant sided with MSNBC, entitling the network to expenses under California law.
"The court calculated that Maddow's team of high-priced attorneys from the law firm Gibson Dunn—including famed First Amendment attorney Ted Boutrous, Jr.—were entitled to collect on 363.1 hours of work totaling $247,667.50, plus an additional $10,724 for hours billed by paralegals," Law & Crime reported.
Read the full report.
==
==
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/steven-donziger-chevron/
no lnx
More than a quarter-century ago, Steven Donziger, a young American human rights lawyer, joined the legal effort to force Texaco to clean up the Ecuadoran headwaters of the Amazon rain forest. Between 1972 and 1992, the company dumped toxic waste and spilled billions of gallons of oil-exposed water across 1,700 square miles, an area larger than Rhode Island. In response, a coalition of rural Ecuadorans in the Lago Agrio region sued the US oil giant, and Donziger signed on to help and soon became the lead attorney on the case.
In 2013, after a legal campaign that stretched across two continents, the 30,000 indigenous people and small farmers whom Donziger represented in a class-action lawsuit won a $9.5 billion judgment in Ecuadoran courts against Chevron, which acquired Texaco in 2001. It was one of the largest financial judgments ever against an oil company. It looked like a historic warning to polluters across the Global South. Paul Paz y Miño, the associate director of the environmental group Amazon Watch, described it as “the most important corporate accountability case in history.”
Fast-forward to today, and Donziger is under house arrest in New York City, forced to wear an ankle monitor. The lawyer, now 59, is fighting contempt charges.Meanwhile, his clients in Ecuador have received nothing from Chevron. Without that funding, they have no way to cleanse the poisoned soil or treat what they say is an elevated number of cancer cases.
The mainstream press has largely ignored the legal attacks against Donziger, but Chevron’s counteroffensive could endanger human rights and environmental work around the world. Donziger’s fate, Paz y Miño said, will set a precedent: “Whether it’s Chevron or BP or Shell or any other oil company, if you cannot hold them to account and the lawyer advocating for that case is personally attacked, who else is going to fight those kinds of cases?”
Chevron’s legal onslaught succeeded largely because of a single federal judge in New York named Lewis A. Kaplan. In 2014, Kaplan found Donziger and his Ecuadoran allies guilty of bribery and fraud, which makes it extremely difficult for the plaintiffs to collect their damages in the United States. Then Kaplan asked federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York to bring criminal contempt charges against Donziger for refusing to turn over his electronic devices, which contain communications with his clients.When the prosecutors declined, Kaplan appointed private attorneys to prosecute Donziger—a nearly unprecedented step by a federal judge.
Judge Lewis Kaplan took the nearly unprecedented step of appointing private attorneys to prosecute Donziger. (Courtesy of Richard Baker / University of Rochester)
Kaplan’s hostility toward Donziger has been on ample display in his 21st-floor wood-paneled courtroom in downtown New York for nearly a decade. At times, he has said the pollution case in Ecuador was “not a bona fide litigation” and dismissed the Lago Agrio residents as “so-called plaintiffs.”
Martin Garbus, the legendary human rights lawyer who is part of Donziger’s legal team, is 86 years old and has appeared at hundreds of trials, including in the Deep South during the segregation era. He told me that Kaplan’s treatment of Donziger is the worst he has ever witnessed. “In the courtroom, Kaplan displayed a rage, a fury, that he channeled against Steve,” Garbus said. “He tried to humiliate him. You wouldn’t have to be an expert on the law to recognize it. It was brutal. I’ve never seen a guy eviscerated the way Kaplan tried to eviscerate Steve.”
For his part, Donziger said he hopes the Ecuadorans and their lawyers will hold Chevron accountable. He is a tall man—6 feet, 4 inches—and has been pacing restlessly around his Upper West Side apartment, reading law briefs or talking with his contacts in Ecuador by phone. These days, the coronavirus has driven almost everyone into their homes, but Donziger has already spent months “detained in a small apartment not because we did anything wrong,” he said, “but because we were successful and did a lot of things right. Facing the loss of one’s liberty not because one committed a crime but because of something dark and unaccountable in the system is terrifying. It calls into question most everything I believe about our country and my role in it.”
In an open letter to his supporters last August, Donziger wrote, “I never knew when I started working on this case in 1993 that I would face jail for standing up for the rights of my clients, who have been victimized by what is probably the world’s worst oil pollution…. Quite simply, Judge Kaplan and Chevron are working in lockstep to try and destroy me and my clients.”
Alberto Guerra, a former Ecuadoran judge who admitted to lying about his interactions with Donziger, became the target of outrage after he testified in support of Chevron.
The saga began in the 1980s, when Ecuadorans in the rain forest started to protest Texaco’s contamination. The company left Ecuador in 1992, after having dumped crude oil, drilling muds, and an oily, watery mixture known as formation water into unlined waste pits—a procedure that has been outlawed in Texas since 1969. Texaco also released billions of gallons of oil-laced water into the rain forest’s streams and lakes, even though the standard procedure in the United States has long been to inject the potentially toxic compounds safely deep underground.
Five peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown an increased incidence of cancer and other health risks in the area. (Chevron funded its own peer-reviewed study, which claimed to find no such cancer risk.)
About 20 grassroots organizations formed the Amazon Defense Coalition in the mid-1990s, and Donziger, a recent graduate of Harvard Law School, started representing the group in 1993.The Ecuadorans originally sued Texaco in the United States, but after years of delay, a federal judge in New York sent the case to Ecuador in 2001. More than a decade later, Chevron lost. Three levels of Ecuadoran courts up to the Supreme Court ratified the verdict and awarded the plaintiffs $9.5 billion. (Though even if Chevron honored the decision, none of the rain forest residents would receive a check. Instead, the Amazon Defense Coalition would use the money to scour the soil of toxins and build treatment centers for cancer patients.)
RELATED ARTICLE
The Nation
ECUADOR’S BATTLE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE AGAINST CHEVRON
James North
Chevron defended itself at every stage of the proceedings in Ecuador, and for years it never challenged the legitimacy of the process. But in 2010 it changed strategies. Chevron launched a countersuit in a New York federal court, alleging that Donziger and his allies had committed bribery and fraud in Ecuador to win the case. The company invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, originally designed to prosecute the Mafia, and in 2011, Kaplan presided over a new trial. Donziger and the Ecuadoran codefendants expected that such serious charges would be tried before a jury, but at the last minute, Chevron dropped its demand for monetary damages.Under RICO law, this meant Donziger and the others lost their right to appear before a jury and Kaplan alone would decide the facts of the case. Charles Nesson, a Harvard law professor, wrote recently in the Harvard Law Record that “Chevron amended its demands to cheat Donziger out of a jury.”
From the beginning of the RICO trial, Kaplan made his pro-business outlook clear. He lauded Chevron as “a company of considerable importance to our economy that employs thousands all over the world, that supplies a group of commodities—gasoline, heating oil, other fuels, and lubricants—on which every one of us depends every single day. I don’t think there is anybody in this courtroom who wants to pull his car into a gas station to fill up and finds that there isn’t any gas there.”
During the case, Chevron claimed that Donziger and his clients had bribed the original trial judge in Ecuador. Chevron’s star witness was Alberto Guerra, a former judge who lost his position on the Ecuadoran bench because of corruption accusations and later, in testimony before an international trade tribunal, admitted to lying about his interactions with Donziger. The oil giant acknowledged paying Guerra and moving him and his family to a secret location in the United States. In all, Donziger estimated that Chevron has spent $2 million on the ex-judge.
Catastrophe: Cofan women stand near a pool of oil. Texaco spilled billions of gallons of contaminated water in Ecuador’s Amazon region. (Dolores Ochoa / AP)
Chevron’s lawyers rehearsed Guerra’s testimony with him 53 times and then put him on the stand in front of Kaplan. In his testimony, the disgraced ex-judge asserted that Donziger and an Ecuadoran lawyer, Pablo Fajardo, had offered him a $500,000 bribe and that Donziger and Fajardo had ghostwritten the final judgment against Chevron. Nicolás Zambrano, the judge who had rendered the decision in Ecuador, denied Guerra’s testimony, but Kaplan accepted Guerra’s account, dismissed Zambrano, and found Donziger and his Ecuadoran colleagues guilty in 2014.
Chevron’s legal offensive is an example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, or SLAPP, suit. Over the past few decades, corporations have brought an increasing number of SLAPP suits against environmental and human rights groups. The idea is to spend so much money that your underfunded opponents are forced to give up.The oil giant presumably also has a related aim: to prevent the plaintiffs from ever collecting their cleanup money. Kaplan’s verdict in the RICO case means Chevron can refuse to pay them in the United States. Chevron has long since sold its remaining holdings in Ecuador, so now Donziger and the Amazon Defense Front have to chase the corporation to other countries where it still does business. Chevron’s lawyers are already trying to use the New York RICO judgment to discredit legal efforts against the company in Canada and elsewhere.
Kaplan’s persecution of Donziger did not stop after the RICO verdict. Donziger faces criminal contempt charges because he has so far refused to turn over his personal computer and cell phone to Chevron, as Kaplan ordered him to do last March. Donziger said in a press release that he is defending his clients, because his electronic communications would give Chevron’s lawyers “backdoor access to spy on everything we are planning, thinking, and doing.” He said he wants to wait until the US Court of Appeals hears his defense, after which he will promptly hand over his computer and phone if the higher court confirms Kaplan’s directive.
Sean Comey, Chevron’s senior adviser on corporate issues, litigation, and financial communications, declined to comment for this article. As a result, I was unable to ask him a series of questions, including: Is your company still paying Guerra for his cooperation? How much is it continuing to spend on the legal case? Why do attorneys representing Chevron appear at every hearing against Donziger, even ones that don’t involve the oil company? And what is Chevron’s role, if any, in the multiple legal attacks against Donziger?
Show of hands: Protesters in New York City, some with symbolically oil-stained hands, demonstrate against Chevron in 2013. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)
Meanwhile, residents in the Amazon rain forest live and work on poisoned land. Donziger cautions that their plight must remain the center of the case. He works closely with Luis Yanza, the elected leader of the Amazon Defense Coalition and a lifelong defender of the environment; in 2008, Yanza won the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize, an award for frontline activists. Donziger and Yanza have talked and e-mailed regularly for more than 25 years, and Donziger, who is fluent in Spanish, estimated that he has visited Ecuador 250 times to consult with his clients.
Yanza told me that cancer continues to afflict people in the rain forest. “I visited several of our communities just last weekend, and each one had two or three cases of cancer, including a girl,” he said. And there is no adequate treatment facility in the Lago Agrio area, he added. “The closest cancer treatment center is in Quito, which is seven to 12 hours by bus, depending on where you live.”
Luis Yanza, the elected leader of the Amazon Defense Coalition, speaks at a protest against Chevron in 2008. (AP Photo / Paul Sakuma)
He is indignant about the attacks on Donziger. “Steven is totally the opposite of how Chevron portrays him,” Yanza said. “He’s dedicated his life—a great part of his life—to defending people in our poor communities.” Yanza also dismissed the insinuations of critics that Donziger is manipulating the unsophisticated rain forest inhabitants. “This is the mentality of imperialism, saying that we don’t have the capacity to think and to act, to make decisions about our own lives. Steven and others in the United States do provide technical and legal help, but the fundamental decisions are made by us here.”
Donziger’s critics say that he is mainly after his percentage of the judgment, that he’s an ambulance-chasing attorney who found his way to the rain forest. But if that were true, wouldn’t Donziger have given up by now? Surely he would have cut his losses, dusted off his Harvard Law diploma, and found another potential money-making scheme. Instead, he has remained under house arrest for nearly eight months.
Donziger is also fighting to get his law license reinstated. (It was suspended in 2018 without a hearing, based on Kaplan’s findings in the contempt case.) In September and October, he appeared several times at a New York Bar Association hearing in lower Manhattan, before a polite referee named John Horan. The cramped, low-ceilinged hearing room was filled with human rights lawyers and environmentalists who support Donziger—as well as a few conservatively dressed attorneys representing Chevron. A parade of witnesses testified to Donziger’s honesty and integrity, including Rex Weyler, a founder of Greenpeace; Roger Waters of the rock band Pink Floyd; and Simon Taylor, one of the directors of Global Witness, the influential international anti-corruption organization. On February 24, Horan found in Donziger’s favor and recommended that his law license be restored. Horan, a former prosecutor, sharply criticized Chevron’s vendetta, writing, “The extent of [Donziger’s] pursuit by Chevron is so extravagant, and at this point so unnecessary and punitive, [that] while not a factor in my recommendation, [it] is nonetheless background to it.” Horan’s decision must now be reviewed by a New York state court.
Steven Donziger addresses a press conference in Ecuador in 2014. Today he’s under house arrest. (Rodrigo Buendia / AFP via Getty Images)
On November 25, Donziger appeared before Senior US District Judge Loretta Preska, who will preside over his criminal contempt trial, to ask that his confinement be ended and replaced by an $800,000 bail bond, guaranteed by a number of his supporters. His attorney, Andrew Frisch, reminded the court that Donziger has a family and is not likely to abandon it to flee the United States. What’s more, Frisch pointed out, doing so would mean abandoning his clients in Ecuador. “For 25 years,” he noted, “Mr. Donziger has had his skin, his heart, and his soul in this cause, which is bigger than him.”
In the end, Preska turned down the request. “Mr. Donziger has ties to Ecuador, we know, indeed, to high-ranking government officials,” she said. “We know he has traveled to Ecuador on numerous, numerous occasions…. I find that he remains a flight risk, and accordingly, the request to eliminate monitoring and home confinement is denied.”
Donziger’s trial isn’t scheduled to begin until June 15. He is again challenging his home detention, but he could remain confined to his apartment until then. If this effort fails, he will have spent more than 300 days under house arrest.
Donziger described what it’s like to live under these circumstances. “Sleep is difficult because my ankle bracelet actually blinks and talks,” he said. “A voice reminds me to recharge the battery, which allows the state to monitor my every movement.” The bracelet is “like a giant black claw that clings to your lower leg. It’s designed to be a constant reminder of your banishment, to disorient you psychologically. Of course,” he added, “Chevron and Judge Kaplan want me to be consumed with my survival—rather than helping the indigenous people of Ecuador collect their judgment.”
James North has reported from Africa, Latin America, and Asia for four decades. He lives in New York City.
==
https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/16448/chevrons-slapp-suit-against-ecuadorians-corporate-intimidation/
no lnx many
Chevron’s SLAPP suit against Ecuadorians: corporate intimidation
by Rex Weyler
CO-FOUNDER
11 May 2018 |
These days, when powerful corporations get caught breaking the law, polluting the Earth, violating human rights, or all of those crimes simultaneously, they don’t pay the fine and make amends, like normal citizens. They attack.
Corporate lawyers spend millions to assault victims with SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation). The most recent SLAPP strategy in the US, popularized by attack-dog New York law firm Gibson Dunn, employs US “racketeering” (RICO) laws against environmental groups, victims of pollution, and their lawyers.
The purpose of a SLAPP lawsuit is not necessarily to win in court, but rather to intimidate, harass, demonize, and bankrupt the weaker opponent. “The powerful use their abundance of resources to enact revenge,” explains the American Civil Liberties Union. Many jurisdictions now ban SLAPP suits, but corporations still shop around for lax jurisdictions and sympathetic judges.
In 2013, for example, when Greenpeace Canada exposed Resolute Forest Products’ destructive logging in Québec, Resolute filed a retaliatory $7-million lawsuit against Greenpeace Canada and two staff members in Ontario, which did not yet have anti-SLAPP laws. Later, Resolute used US courts to attack Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace International under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, created in 1970 to prosecute organized crime syndicates. “This lawsuit,” said Greenpeace US director Annie Leonard, “is an attempt to silence, vilify, and criminalize activism.” As with most of these intimidation lawsuits, the RICO case in the US was thrown out of court, but Resolute promptly filed an amended suit.
In perhaps the most vindictive SLAPP in history, Chevron — one of the world’s largest corporations, with over $260-billion in assets — found a sympathetic New York judge to accept a RICO lawsuit against the victims of its vast oil pollution in Ecuador’s Amazon basin.
Legal thuggery
Chevron’s Amazon troubles began in 2000 when it purchased Texaco, inheriting liability for the company’s oil field pollution in Ecuador, known as the Amazon Chernobyl. Texaco/Chevron had dumped some 16 billion gallons of toxic wastewater into rivers and abandoned over 900 carcinogenic waste pits. The Indigenous rainforest inhabitants claim they were left with destroyed land, polluted water, and an epidemic of cancer and birth defects.
Abandoned toxic oil dump, Ecuador. Courtesy of Amazon Watch Abandoned toxic oil dump, Ecuador. Courtesy of Amazon Watch]
In 1993, the victims sued for damages in the US. Chevron fought for nine years to shift the case to Ecuador, where they may have expected to influence the courts. Chevron fully accepted jurisdiction in Ecuador, where the case began in 2003. Six years later, in light of overwhelming scientific evidence, Chevron realized that they would likely lose. In 2009 the oil company hired the notorious “rescue squad” law firm of Gibson Dunn, found a corporate-friendly Judge, Lewis A. Kaplan in New York, and began a series of SLAPP attacks on the victims, on their lawyers, and on the Ecuadorian judicial system. Over the next five years, Kaplan allowed virtually any Chevron motion, denied defendant motions, mocked the victims and their lawyers, and allowed a RICO racketeering case against two Ecuadoreans — Secoya Indigenous leader Javier Piaguaje and farmer Hugo Camacho — and their American lawyer, Steven Donziger.
Meanwhile, in Ecuador, the Indigenous and peasant villagers won a $9.5 billion compensation judgment, confirmed by appellate courts and by Ecuador’s Supreme Court (Court of Cessation). In response, Chevron sold its assets in Ecuador, fled the country, refused to pay, and threatened the victims with a “lifetime of litigation.”
The company has since retained over 60 law firms, 2,000 lawyers, paralegals, six public relations firms, squads of private investigators, and at least one bribed witness, who later admitted to lying. Lawyers for the victims estimate Chevron has spent over $2 billion to avoid payment of the court judgement, the largest collection of SLAPP suits in history.
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (Gibson Dunn) promotes itself as a corporate “rescue squad” specializing in “shielding clients” from “billions in liability”. They boast of getting George W. Bush installed as US president by stopping a Florida vote recount, and shielding Lehman Brothers from liabilities in the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history.
Randy Mastro co-chairs the firm’s litigation department; infamous for a string of court censures for fabricating evidence, lying and other criminal misconduct. In 2015, the High Court of England sanctioned Gibson Dunn for fabricating evidence to frame the political rival of the firm’s client, the President of Djibouti, Africa.
In 2005, a federal court in California sanctioned Gibson Dunn for tampering with a witness, “obstruction, gamesmanship and flagrant disregard” of Court orders. In 2007, the Montana Supreme Court assessed a $9.9 million fine against Gibson Dunn for “blatantly and maliciously trying to intimidate” its adversary, using the judicial system for “legal thuggery”. The following year, a New York federal judge sanctioned the firm for “unacceptable shenanigans”, including hiding documents and outright lies. A California federal judge concluded that the firm’s misconduct is “a product of a culture which permeates” Gibson Dunn.
As Chevron faced losing the pollution case in Ecuador, CEO John Watson and General Counsel R. Hewitt Pate turned to Gibson Dunn’s “rescue squad” for help.The lawyers, led by Mastro, soon revealed their abusive tactics. An Oregon federal judge sanctioned the Gibson Dunn lawyers for using the discovery process — intended to provide information to opposing counsel — to harass a small legal non-profit assisting the Ecuadorian victims. In Ecuador, appellate judges rebuked Chevron’s new lawyers for threatening trial Judge Nicolas Zambrano with criminal charges and prison unless he dismissed the case.
However, the Ecuadorian decision stood, Chevron owed its victims $9.5 billion, and Randy Mastro went to work harassing the victims, their lawyers, and the Ecuadorian justice system before a gleefully encouraging Judge Kaplan in New York.
Judge as prosecutor
Chevron and Gibson Dunn knew precisely who Judge Kaplan was, when they launched their series of SLAPP suits through his court.
In 2004, Kaplan allowed the NY Police Department to arrest any “recognizable group” of 50 or more cyclists riding together, as a way of stopping bicycle protests, specifically by the environmental group Critical Mass. Although the First Amendment of the US Constitution protects “freedom of assembly”, Kaplan argued that “traffic flow” held precedent over the right of citizens to assemble in peaceful protest. When Lehman Brothers employees sued Lehmans for failing to protect their pension plan, violating the Employee Retirement Security Act, Kaplan simply dismissed the case.
At The Robing Room, a judicial review forum, one commenter warned, “if you are representing big business interests, Judge Kaplan will find a way to rule in your favor. If you going up against big business interests, you are out of luck.” Others describe Kaplan as “working for business interests” and “part of the old-boy network.”
“We knew that Gibson Dunn and Chevron had selected Judge Kaplan as an ally,” said Steven Donziger, lawyer for the original Ecuadorian plaintiffs, Frente de Defensa de la Amazonía (FDA).“A normal judge’s responsibility is to insure impartiality, decorum, and legal integrity. In the RICO SLAPP suit, Kaplan served more as a member of the prosecution team. He mocked defendants, laughed at defense motions, praised Chevron, granted their every wish, and insulted the entire Ecuadorian justice system.”
Marathon of preliminaries
The highly unusual three year discovery and deposition process, prior to the actual trial, revealed a succession of nightmarish legal irregularities:
No media confidentiality: The SLAPP began in April 2010, when Kaplan forced filmmaker, Joseph Berlinger to turn over 600 hours of outtakes from his acclaimed 2009 documentary, Crude: The Real Price of Oil. Kaplan ridiculed the journalist’s request to protect confidential sources. “If this is your best argument,” jeered Kaplan, “you’re in a lot of trouble.” A media coalition — including The New York Times, NBC, and HBO — filed a First Amendment objection with the court, and Robert Redford, writing in the Huffington Post, called the decision a “shocking” betrayal of US First Amendment rights.
Insulting a foreign Court: Kaplan and Chevron lawyer Mastro used the Berlinger hearings to insult the courts in Ecuador, where Chevron had insisted the trial be held. Mastro called the Ecuador courts “a sham” that would cause “any American to shudder at … what passes for a judicial system.” Kaplan openly laughed when asked to delay until an Ecuadorian court could provide input. “If this were the High Court in London,” Kaplan taunted, “you can be sure I’d wait.” Despite Mastro and Kaplan’s disdain here, the Ecuadorian justice system appears as impartial and honourable as any such system in any modern nation.
Insulting the defendants: Throughout the proceedings and in written memoranda, Kaplan referred to the 30,000 class-action victims in Ecuador as “so-called plaintiffs”, suggesting that their “standing in this matter is debatable to say the least.” He referred to their case in Ecuador as “the game” and “not a bona fide litigation.” When Donziger’s attorney made a routine request for time to review thousands of documents, Kaplan scoffed, “Don’t tell me about how long Mr. Donziger needs. I know the game here.”
No attorney-client confidentiality: Kaplan invoked a minor technicality to claim that Donziger, the victims’ US lawyer, had “waived” all attorney-client privilege, and insisted he turn over to Chevron lawyers 17-years of confidential communications with his clients, including, emails, notes, and his entire hard drive. Defense attorneys called this “the most sweeping forced production of privileged documents in history.”
Monster deposition:Federal rules typically limit individual depositions to one day, possibly two days in extraordinary cases. Once Chevron had all of Donziger’s confidential client files, they forced him, with Kaplan’s approval, to endure an unorthodox 18 days of discovery deposition, during which 20 or more Chevron/Gibson Dunn lawyers pelted him with petty and personal questions. According to Donziger’s RICO case rebuttal, Chevron’s lead PR consultant, revealed in 2009: “Our L-T [long-term] strategy is to demonize Donziger.”
Special Master: Judge Kaplan appointed his former law partner, Max Gitter, as “Special Master” or private judge to rule over the protracted deposition, paid entirely by Chevron. According to the Amazon Defense Coalition, Kaplan approved secret payments to Gitter, totaling “likely well over $1 million.” Like Kaplan, Gitter approved Chevron requests and dismissed defense requests. He revealed his conspiratorial relationship with Mastro and Chevron when he made a ruling based on the contents of a future Chevron document that had not yet been filed with the court. Upon realizing his error, he muttered, “Mr. Mastro, am I correct about that?” Mastro responded, “absolutely correct.”
Judge proposes Chevron strategy:During the discovery hearings, Judge Kaplan exclaimed: “Do the phrases Hobbs Act, extortion, RICO, have any bearing here?” signaling to Chevron lawyers that they should file a racketeering complaint. Shortly thereafter, on February 1, 2011, Chevron filed their RICO complaint against Donziger, Piaguaje, and Camacho, claiming that the 10-year case before three levels of Ecuadorian courts amounted to criminal extortion. Chevron asked for billions of dollars in damages, from Donziger, a sole practitioner, and two impoverished villagers, which required a jury trial. Kaplan accepted the claim and assigned the case to himself.
International powers:After the RICO filing, Judge Kaplan presumed to issue a universal injunction, allegedly prohibiting any court in any nation from enforcing the environmental judgment against Chevron, two days before the Ecuadorian court announced that judgment. In September, 2011, the US Court of Appeals vacated the injunction, chastizing Kaplan for inflicting damage on international comity, the principle among modern nations to show respect for each other’s legal systems.
Implacable hostility: By this time, Donziger and the Ecuadorian victims were almost broke, which Donziger claims, “was the whole point of Mastro’s and Chevron’s strategy.” Nevertheless, renowned defense attorney, John Keker, a former US marine, highly respected for legal integrity, offered to help the beleaguered defendants. “This case has degenerated into a Dickensian farce,” Keker said. “Encouraged by this Court’s implacable hostility toward Donziger, Chevron will file any motion, however meritless, in the hope that the Court will use it to hurt Donziger.”
Fishing expeditions:Chevron served Donziger, Piaguaje, and Camacho, with hundreds of new document requests and over a thousand “requests for admission,” disputed claims that Chevron could argue were “admitted” if the defendants could not respond. The impoverished Ecuadorian peasants kept almost no documents and rarely engaged in written communication. The requests imposed a massive new expense for the defendants.Kaplan also allowed Chevron to serve subpoenas on Amazon Watch, Google, Microsoft, and others, seeking email accounts to track the activities of some 100 lawyers, students, journalists, and academics that supported the Ecuadorian’s cause. “These were fishing expeditions,” Donziger explained, “that violated everyone’s right to privacy.”
Scorched Earth:By May 2013, before the actual trial had even begun, the defendants were thoroughly destitute, and their defense attorneys — Keker and Craig Smyser, who had been deferring payment — could no longer continue. Both attorneys expressed outrage at Kaplan’s refusal to grant common sense measures to streamline the burdensome process. “Through scorched-earth litigation, executed by its army of hundreds of lawyers,” said Keker, “Chevron is using its limitless resources to crush defendants and win this case through might rather than merit.”Smyser, called the lawsuit a “legal blitzkrieg” that Kaplan not only tolerated but “encouraged”.
After four years of gruelling discovery depositions and document demands by Chevron — the exhausted defendants’ best hope for justice rested on the trial jury. A jury would remove some decision-making power from Kaplan, and would hear overwhelming evidence of Chevron pollution and legal misdeeds. However, Kaplan had new surprises in store.
[pix Ecuadorians and P. Bellegarde, court, 2018 © Johanna LunaHugo Camacho, Amazon Defense Coalition (second from left) was one of the villagers named in the US RICO case. Here, he joins Domingo Paes, Achuar; Canadian Assembly of First Nations Grand Chief Perry Bellegarde, Janeth Cuji, Kichwa; and Rafael Pandam, President of the Indigenous Amazonian Parliament of Ecuador, in a Canadian court]
The RICO Trial
No jury:On the eve of the trial, Chevron decided, with Kaplan’s approval, to drop their financial damages claim, which meant that Kaplan could drop the jury and decide the outcome himself. “Chevron,” said Donziger, “apparently panicked at the notion of trying to sell their fraud and extortion claims to anyone other than Kaplan.” The defense demanded a jury trial, based on their right to a jury in a RICO case, a long-standing legal principle in cases that carry criminal implications. Kaplan refused. He would decide himself about the defendants’ guilt or innocence.
No pollution talk: Even though Kaplan had presumed the authority to “set aside” an Ecuadorian environmental judgment with a 10-year, 220,000-page evidentiary record of Chevron’s environmental crimes, and to characterize that entire proceeding as an act of “extortion,” the corporate-friendly judge barred the defense from even mentioning anything “related to the existence of pollution in Ecuador.” The pollution, he said, was “not relevant.”
No dirty-tricks talk:Furthermore, Kaplan ruled that the defense could not mention evidence of Chevron’s campaign or Gibson Dunn’s campaign of “dirty tricks” operations, past courtroom crimes, lies, and fabricated evidence. Chevron, of course, was allowed to discuss any alleged history of the defendants, dredged up from four years of ruthless depositions, spies, and private investigators.
Tsunami of paper: On the first day of trial, Chevron placed over 2,500 exhibits into evidence en masse, nearly 10,000 separate assertions, to which the impoverished defense was given less than a week to respond. If they failed, Kaplan could deem the defendants’ objection “waived.”
Anonymous witnesses: Kaplan accepted testimony from Chevron witnesses whose identity they kept hidden from the defense, preventing the normal investigation necessary for effective cross-examination. The defense expressed outrage at this violation of “basic legal principles,” which they said would “be right at home in the Spanish Inquisition.”
Editing the evidence: At this point, the defense caught Randy Mastro presenting edited video, in which he had cut out critical contextual words from Mr. Donziger’s comments. According to trial transcripts, when the defense brought this to the judge’s attention, Kaplan adjourned, did some research, and responded: “About 15 words were edited out … I assume there was no attempt to mislead.”
Chevron’s claim that the entire Ecuadorian judicial process — ten years of court trials and appellate reviews in three levels of courts — had been “fraudulent” rested, however, almost entirely upon one, single witness.
[ pix Steven Donziger at oil well © Lisa GibbonsSteven Donziger, lawyer for the Ecuador plaintiffs for 25 years, at oil site in Ecuador’s Amazon]
The Witness
In American Lawyer magazine, in 2009, David Hechler, describes Gibson Dunn’s “game plan,” to shield clients from liability in foreign pollution cases: “find witnesses” who will accuse the foreign court of “fraud.” In a separate American Lawyer story, Gibson, Dunn lawyer Robert Cooper, explains, “We prepared the witnesses to tell our story.”
In Ecuador, on behalf of Chevron, Gibson Dunn found one such witness, Alberto Guerra, a former Ecuadorian judge who had been removed for misconduct, including accepting bribes. According to Amazon Watch, Chevron lawyer Andres Rivero and Chevron private investigator Yohi Ackerman paid Guerra $48,000 in cash, and agreed to pay him $12,000 a month for at least three years. Chevron lawyers allegedly negotiated and smoothed Guerra’s immigration into the US, paid for his family to move, hired lawyers to get them green cards, and bought them a car, auto insurance, and health insurance.
Justice Now protest, Ecuador. Photo courtesy of amazonwatch.orgJustice Now protest, Ecuador. Photo courtesy of amazonwatch.org]
According to a letter from the defense to the US Department of Justice, Chevron has paid Guerra at least $2 million in cash and benefits, in exchange for false testimony. According to an affidavit by legal ethicist Erwin Chemerinsky — Founding Dean of the University of California at Irvine School of Law and a prominent US legal scholar — these payments to Guerra violated fundamental ethical rules of law.
In New York, over 53 days by Guerra’s admission, Gibson Dunn’s Randy Mastro helped him prepare his testimony about “fraud” in Ecuador. On the stand before judge Kaplan, Guerra claimed that Ecuadorian lawyers promised presiding judge Nicolas Zambrano $500,000 to allow them to write the final judgment, which Guerra claimed they gave to Zambrano on a flash drive. Guerra also claimed that he possessed a draft copy of the fraudulent judgment and that he met with the plaintiffs’ American lawyer Steven Donziger to discuss the alleged “bribe”.
Quickly, however, Guerra’s story fell apart.Immigration records showed that Donziger was not even in Ecuador when Guerra claims the meeting took place. No evidence of a flash drive was ever produced, and Guerra’s computers did not turn up the draft judgment, or even a single email from the plaintiffs’ attorneys.When this came to light, Guerra changed his story, claiming that after “strengthening my memory”he now recalled working on this draft, not at home, but rather had taken an eight-hour bus ride into the jungle, where he claimed he edited the judgment on a laptop handed to him by one of the Ecuadorians’ lawyers.
However, this story crumbled as well when forensic analysis showed that the trial judge had never downloaded the judgement from a flash drive and, rather, had opened and saved his own written judgement document more than 400 times over three months on his own office computer.
Furthermore, after the RICO trial, in a separate arbitration under the US-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty, Guerra admitted under oath that he had lied to Chevron’s lawyers about his involvement in the alleged attempt to influence the Ecuadorian judgement. “I did exaggerate about [some things], yes,” said Guerra under questioning. When a lawyer asked him, “And among the ways you tried to leverage your position was to falsely tell the Chevron representatives that the Plaintiffs had offered you $300,000?” Guerra answered, “Yes, sir. I lied there.”
Nevertheless, Kaplan accepted Guerra’s testimony and rejected defense efforts— Motion to strike testimony and Motion for terminating sanctions — to strike Guerra’s testimony, which the defense claims was fabricated during the 53-day session with Chevron lawyers.
The final twist appeared as Judge Kaplan crafted a judgment. By dropping the money claim, Chevron had avoided a jury but also undermined its own case. A plaintiff must seek either money for damages or an injunction, a court-ordered condition placed on the defendant. The Court of Appeals had already reversed Kaplan’s earlier injunction and could do so again. Without a money claim or injunction, Chevron lacked standing.
Perhaps to avoid this problem, Kaplan based his guilty verdict on a “non-statutory claim for equitable relief” from an allegedly fraudulent judgment. According to Donziger’s rebuttal, the decision lacked “due process,” since the claim had never been presented by Chevron or argued in court, and “relied on vague 18th and 19th century treatises” that “had been effectively repealed and replaced by the statutory framework for enforcement of foreign judgments … during the twentieth century.” Typically, a judge can’t invent a new claim for the plaintiff after a trial has ended.
The Republic of Ecuador filed an Amicus Brief, stating that “Judge Lewis Kaplan reached far beyond the issues presented to unfairly—and unnecessarily—impugn the integrity of the Republic of Ecuador.” They stated that Kaplan’s “unfounded commentary”, against a “sovereign democracy”, was based on “unreliable evidence”. The Ecuadorian court charged that Kaplan relied almost exclusively on one Vladimiro Álvarez Grau, an avowed political opponent of the Ecuadorian government. “Chevron sought out a favorable forum,” the Ecuadorian court wrote. “The District Court [Kaplan], fulfilling Chevron’s wishes, chose to make far-reaching judgments based primarily on the opinions of a single partisan.”
Finally, the Ecuadorian court confirmed that Chevron Corporation remained responsible for the impact of its pollution. “In 2005,” the court wrote, “ChevronTexaco dropped the name ‘Texaco’ and reverted to its original name, Chevron Corporation. There is no indication in the record before us that shortening its name had any effect on ChevronTexaco’s legal obligations. Chevron Corporation therefore remains accountable.”
Furthermore, in a separate discovery hearing, the US Third Circuit court cautioned: “The circumstances supporting [Chevron’s] claim of fraud largely are allegations and allegations are not factual findings.”
This historic SLAPP lawsuit, possibly the most expensive in history, appears to have failed, even after Kaplan’s decision. Foreign courts have ignored Kaplan’s injunction, and Donziger and his clients are making progress in Canadian courts, where the victims are attempting to collect the Ecuadorian judgment by seizing Chevron Canada’s assets, and where they have won three consecutive unanimous appellate court decisions. Donziger and the Ecuadorian villagers have said they would welcome Chevron to claim in Canada that the Ecuadorian judgment was fraudulent. “If they had to bring Guerra to Canada before a neutral judge,” says Donziger, “we believe the company’s entire RICO narrative will collapse.”
SLAPP suits represent a threat to public protest and free speech. They have no place in a democracy.
References and Links
Ecuador Supreme Court (Court of Cessation): court ruling in Ecuadorean class action vs. Chevron Corporation.
ACLU, Slapped: A Tool for Activists: ACLU
Chevron assets: Fortune magazine.
Chevron: 60 law firms and 2000 lawyers: Amazon Watch, CSR.
Chevron threatens plaintiffs with a “Lifetime of litigation.”: (1) “Chevron Accused of $2 Million Witness Bribery Plot in Ecuador Pollution Case, Alternet, January 31, 2018; and (2) Writ of Mandamus, Feb. 6, 2011: pdf
Gibson Dunn, “rescue squad,” “shielding clients”: Gibson Dunn promotions
Gibson Dunn censure by High Court of England: “Chevron Law Firm Gibson Dunn Blasted by High Court of England For Falsifying Evidence: Chevron Pit, March 25, 2015.” Montana Supreme Court assessed a $9.9 million fine against Gibson Dunn: Montana Supreme Court document, 05-378, 2007, MT 62.
Ecuador, appellate judges rebuke Chevron’s lawyers for threatening trial Judge Nicolas Zambrano.
Gibson Dunn in Ecuador: under scrutiny for trying to mislead Congress
California, 2005, censure of Gibson Dunn
Gibson Dunn sanctioned by a federal judge for harassing a witness in a discovery action in Oregon.
Comments about Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on legal review site: The Robing Room
Robert Redford objects to Kaplan denial of media confidentiality: Huffington Post
New York Times, NBC, and HBO file a First Amendment objection with the court. NPR
Kaplan and Mastro insult the courts in Ecuador: “Writ of Mandamus, US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo and Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje, petitioners, filed by Attorneys: James E. Tyrrell Jr. NY, Julio C. Gomez, NY, and Carlos A. Zelaya, II, Feb. 6, 2011: pdf
Allegations of bias by Kaplan: Writ of Mandamus, Feb. 6, 2011: pdf; and “Chevron’s RICO Fraud” pdf
“Our L-T [long-term] strategy is to demonize Donziger.” — Chevron’s lead PR consultant, 2009: (1) “Chevron’s RICO Fraud” pdf and (2) “Chevron Accused of $2 Million Witness Bribery Plot in Ecuador Pollution Case, Alternet, January 31, 2018
Chevron’s RICO Fraud: An Abuse of Indigenous Peoples, the Environment, and U.S. Courts in the Chevron v. Donziger Case; S. Donziger and the Ecuadorian Legal Team: pdf.
Defendant’s right to a jury in a RICO case: CSR, 6 February, 2014.
Defense calls anonymous witnesses a violation of “basic legal principles … right at home in the Spanish Inquisition.”: US District Court, Southern District of New York, Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1154 Filed 05/14/13, “Opposition to Chevron’s Motion for an order to Further protecting the Confidential declaration of Doe3.”
Gibson Dunn “game plan”: (1) “District Court Denies Enforcement of $97 Million Nicaraguan Judgment,” Gibson Dunn; and (2) “The Kill Step,” David Hechler, Sept. 20, 2009, The American Lawyer
Randy Mastro and Gibson Dunn lawyers preparing Guerra over 53 days: Huffington Post, Paul Paz y Miño, May 30, 2017.
Guerra bribed by Chevron: (1) “Chevron Accused of $2 Million Witness Bribery Plot in Ecuador Pollution Case, Alternet, January 31, 2018; (2) “Chevron’s RICO Fraud,” legal rebuttal: pdf. Guerra bribed by Chevron: Huffington Post, Dec. 6, 2017; (3) “Chevron Executives Misused Millions of Shareholder Dollars To Bribe a Witness,” Amazon Watch, May 30, 2017.
Alberto Guerra admits lying in RICO testimony: (1) US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Chevron Corporation vs. Steven Donziger, Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo, et. al.; No. 14-826-cv(L), November 5, 2015. (2) “Chevron’s Star Witness Admits to Lying in the Amazon Pollution Case, Vice News, Eva Hershaw, October 26, 2015 (with Testimony from arbitration under the US-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Treaty); (3) U.S. Courts Endorsed Chevron’s Fabricated Evidence: Ecuadorian Villagers and Counsel Slam Chevron’s Star Witness for Lying and Offer Rebuttals to 12 False Findings by Second Circuit Court of Appeals”: CSR wire, May 16, 2017; and (4) Chevron’s RICO Fraud: pdf.
“Judge Kaplan Drastically Overreached With “Unlawful” Injunction To Protect Chevron, International Law Experts Say,” Rainforest Action Network.
Defense documents requesting to strike Guerra’s false testimony, citing evidence that Guerra lied, and admitted to lying: (1) Motion to strike testimony of Alberto Guerra Bastides, pdf and (2) Motion for terminating sanctions, pdf.
“Rainforest Groups Blast U.S. Judge Kaplan for Ruling Designed to Help Chevron Evade $9.5b Pollution Liability,” CSR wire, March 9, 2018.
Republic of Ecuador’s Amicus Brief denouncing the Kaplan judgement based on false testimony from a bribed witness, and denouncing Kaplan’s insults toward Ecuadorian courts.
US Third Circuit court, Chevron’s claim of fraud are allegations, not facts: Writ of Mandamus, US Court of Appeals, Case: 11-2259, 06/02/2011.
Kaplan’s judgement based on 18th and 19th century treatises: Judgement transcript: District Court, Southern District of New York: Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF, Document 1874, Filed 03/04/14, Page 330 of 497.
Chevron lacked standing: (Article III , U.S. Constitution; the US Supreme Court has held that federal courts may hear “cases and controversies” but many not simply issue advisory opinions if there is no claim for “relief.”
“In Canada, Chevron Faces New Risks From $12b Ecuador Pollution Judgment As Shareholders Step up Pressure,” Amazon Defense Coalition, FDA, March 23, 2018
==
no lnx many?
desmog 220
California Communities Argue Their Climate Liability Suits Are Based on Fossil Fuel Disinformation Campaigns
By Dana Drugmand • Wednesday, February 5, 2020 - 18:31
In back-to-back hearings before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Wednesday, lawyers representing California cities and counties suing fossil fuel companies over localized climate impacts argued their cases are based on the companies’ alleged campaigns of deception around climate science that downplayed the danger of their products.
Opposing arguments by an attorney representing Chevron as well as a Department of Justice lawyer failed to defend against this core allegation, and instead claimed that global warming broadly is an issue of federal concern that requires federal rather than state court jurisdiction.
Federal or State Courts?
The California lawsuits, first filed in 2017, seek to hold major fossil fuel companies liable for costs associated with climate impacts like coastal flooding and sea level rise. The cases have not been to trial and are currently in a jurisdictional battle over whether they belong in state or federal courts.
One set of suits, including those brought by the cities of Richmond, Santa Cruz, and Imperial Beach as well as the counties of Marin, Santa Cruz, and San Mateo, had been remanded or ordered back to state court. Fossil fuel defendants are appealing that ruling. Another set of lawsuits brought by Oakland and San Francisco had been dismissed after a federal judge declined to remand to state court. The cities are appealing both of those decisions.
The California communities, along with other government plaintiffs suing the companies including Baltimore and Rhode Island, say the claims are about wrongful promotion of a dangerous product and the companies’ deceptive behavior, which are traditionally state tort law claims that state courts should handle.
The companies, however, argue that the claims are really about fossil fuel production and the resulting emissions, which they say implicates federal interests and requires federal court jurisdiction. They have had success getting similar climate cases dismissed in federal court.
Federal Government Supporting Fossil Fuel Companies
Although the federal government is not a party in this litigation, the Department of Justice (DOJ) is supporting the fossil fuel companies. As InsideClimate News recently reported, the DOJ has been in close contact with attorneys for the companies, raising questions as to whether DOJ is representing fossil fuel interests rather than the public interest. On Wednesday, a DOJ attorney appeared in court to argue in support of the companies during the hearing on the San Francisco and Oakland appeal.
DOJ’s Jonathan Brightbill said federal government has an interest in ensuring that the political branches, not the courts, set policies concerning climate change. He referenced the Ninth Circuit Court’s recent dismissal of the Juliana v. United States youth climate case, quoting Judge Andrew Hurwitz saying, “some questions, even those existential in nature, are the province of the political branches.”
Theodore Boutrous, lawyer for Chevron, also argued in a letter sent to the court ahead of the hearings that the Juliana dismissal favors the fossil fuel companies’ arguments for federal jurisdiction.
In addition to contending that only the political branches of government can address the issue of climate change, the companies argue that these cases concern federally authorized production of oil and gas.
‘Wrongful Promotion and Marketing and Deceit’
But while Boutrous argued that the cases are all about production, attorneys for the California communities said they are actually about wrongful promotion and decades of deceit.
“I have to take a moment at the start to push back on this mischaracterization of what this case is about,” attorney Vic Sher said. “The case does not go back to the dawn of time. It does not attack oil and gas production anywhere, at any moment in any amount. It is based on a 50-year campaign of deception and denial that’s limited temporally, and legally it’s based on the wrongful promotion and marketing and deceit that led to the profligate and uncontrolled use of these materials to the world’s detriment.”
Attorney Michael Rubin, arguing on behalf of San Francisco and Oakland, offered a similar description of the claims.
“They allege that these private companies engaged in a large-scale sophisticated advertising and communications campaign to promote the use of their products at massive levels the defendants claimed were safe and environmentally responsible,” he said, “although defendants have known since the early ‘70s threatens severe and even catastrophic harms to coastal cities like San Francisco and Oakland. They embark on this campaign by undermining or discrediting the scientific evidence, withholding information they had about global warming, basically trying to persuade the community to use their fossil fuels.”
Rubin added, “At the same time that defendants were engaged in this wrongful promotional campaign, was the greatest period of fossil fuel use in the history of the world.”
Boutrous did not defend against these allegations, even when pressed by the judges.
“But a very important part of the claim as I understand it is there were active efforts to undermine the science. What about that?” Judge Morgan Christen asked.
“Part of what they’re arguing is punitive damages, they have other theories,” Boutrous responded. “But they’re claiming that the companies knew, and there’s big First Amendment questions there as well, but the government promotes oil and gas production…”
Judge Christen then interjected, “But I’m not sure how this goes to my point…It seems to me the way you’re describing the essence, getting back to Judge Ikuta’s question, is that this is about production. And it seems to me the complaint is about this alleged campaign…and I’m not sure you’re really speaking to this part of the campaign to undermine the science.”
Boutrous again deflected, refusing to directly respond to the allegation that companies like Exxon and Chevron actively worked to discredit climate science.
In a statement following the hearings, the counties of Marin, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz and the cities of Imperial Beach, Santa Cruz, and Richmond said they are intent on holding these companies liable for their climate deception.
“It has been two years or more since our communities first filed these cases to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the climate change-related damages they knowingly caused and the high costs our taxpayers are already incurring as a result,” the communities said. “It is time for the defendants to be held accountable for their decades-long campaign of public deception about climate change and its consequence."
==
drilled podcast
1219 intercept
THE LEAD ATTORNEY for Chevron in another spate of recent climate liability lawsuits,Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., is also a prominent Democratic donor. A partner in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Boutrous also regularly represents media organizations and reporters in First Amendment cases andhas recently been representing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients on a pro bono legal team.
In an interview with The Intercept, Boutrous defended his Chevron representation. “It’s very easy for me to fight these lawsuits tooth and nail because I think they’re counterproductive and just make no sense from a policy standpoint and legal perspective,” he said, adding that it’s not “a proper use of lawsuits to bring cases that are completely baseless as a platform to debate public issues; that’s not really what we should be using the courts for.”
Boutrous has given:{tens of thousands of dollars:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: to Democratic candidates and causes, but argued that political contributions have exaggerated influence on policymaking. Echoing a position shared by many prominent Democratic leaders, he said that taking a hard line against fossil fuel companies could interfere with making progress on tackling the climate crisis. “The fallacy at the root of the lawsuit is that somehow punishing and singling out oil and gas companies is needed, when we need to cope with the fact that we still need this energy. And while we can look for alternative sources of energy [and] technological solutions, one of the best sources for this would be these very companies,” he said, adding that Chevron both “accepts” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s findings and supports U.S. participation in the Paris Agreement. Advocates of partnering with energy companies point to the rapid growth of wind and solar, which has proliferated largely because it’s:{become profitable:(style="box-sizing:border-box"):}: enough to do so.
Boutrous, who also successfully represented auto companieswhen California sued auto manufacturers to demand that they pay for the environmental damage caused by the emissions of their vehicles, argued at length that corporations could be held to account for being socially responsible without, as he put it, being demonized by the Democratic Party. He emphasized his commitment to tackling climate change, but raised particular criticism with Sen. Bernie Sanders, who in September said he’d consider criminally prosecuting fossil fuel executives. Boutrous called Sanders’s position “so wrongheaded.”
Despite evidence to the contrary, Boutrous also insisted that the fear of money’s corrupting influence on politics is exaggerated.
“I think it’s really overrated the influence that corporations and money have over politicians,” he said. “If you look at all the people who have the right to vote and don’t vote, and sometimes the votes are suppressed, but if you look at all those people, that is an enormous political force. So before we say it’s just money in politics that’s causing the problem, we all need to take responsibility for making sure our voices are heard. The people of the United States need to take responsibility for our country, our climate, and we need to stop blaming everything on too much money.”
==
NEW YORK, Aug. 15 /CSRwire/ - The New York bar’s unprecedented attempt to suspend prominent corporate accountability attorney Steven Donziger without a hearing after he helped Ecuadorian Indigenous peoples win a $9.5 billion environmental judgment against Chevron is based on false testimony from a paid company witness coached 53 days by lawyers at the firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, according to a bombshell report produced by one of the world’s leading forensic computer investigators.
Donziger still maintains his law license and is helping his clients in Ecuador’s Amazon rainforest enforce their judgment by trying to seize Chevron’s substantial assets in Canada, where three appellate courts have issued unanimous rulings in their favor. (See here.) But behind the scenes,Chevron’s batallion-sized U.S. legal team – it has included 2,000 lawyers from at least 60 firms at a cost of at least $2 billion – has trained its sites on demonizing Donziger as part of a new corporate “playbook” invented by the company’s attorneys at the Gibson Dunn firm and marketed to scandal-plagued clients facing major liabilities.
(See this article for background on Chevron’s intimidation campaign and here for an article in the Huffington Post about how Chevron’s defense has unraveled.)
According to multiple sources, the Gibson Dunn marketing playbook involves what the firm calls the “kill step” to defeat the enforcement in the U.S. of civil money judgements obtained from foreign courts. The “kill step” usually involves accusing opposing counsel of “fraud” and other misconduct to try to intimidate them into withdrawing, thereby leaving the corporation’s victims defenseless and unable to continue with their cases. If actual evidence of fraud does not exist, as in the Ecuador matter, the Gibson Dunn lawyers will hire investigators to bribe foreign witnesses to concoct false stories of “fraud” about opposing counsel to be presented in U.S. courts; the firm’s lawyers are theoretically protected from any downside risk by the general inability of U.S. courts to force foreigners to appear or be deposed.
The Gibson Dunn “kill step” is now being deployed against Donziger, who faces an interim suspension by the New York bar after staff attorneys designated him as an “immediate threat to the public order” based on highly disputed testimony from a Chevron-paid witness who has admitted under oath that he repeatedly lied to the company. Prominent members of the legal community, including First Amendment lawyer Marty Garbus and Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson, expressed “shock” and “dismay” at the bar’s decision to suspend Donziger without a hearing. Donziger is fighting the allegations in a post-suspension hearing that likely will take place in September and be open to the public.
Gibson Dunn used the same “kill step” strategy roughly ten years ago on behalf of the Dole Food Company, which faced major liability in Nicaraguan courts for causing infertility in banana workers after it used an illegal pesticide that had been banned in the United States. According to multiple sources, evidence emerged in the Dole case that Gibson Dunn’s lawyers and investigators engaged in perjury, witness bribery, and fabrication of evidence to have the company’s liability thrown out of a California state court, according to legal documents. A key part of the strategy was an attack campaign leveled against the U.S. lawyer for the Nicaraguan victims, Jorge Dominguez, that included an attempt to have him disbarred, according to lawyers and others who worked on the matter.
Among other violations in the Dole case, Gibson Dunn’s lawyers hired an investigations firm in Mexico (called Investigative Research and headed by ex-CIA agent, Douglas Beard) to recruit and pay a Nicaraguan man, Jamie Gonzalez, to provide a false affidavit that fabricated a meeting attended by the Nicaraguan trial judge where the case supposedly was “fixed” against Dole. Although the meeting never took place, lawyers at the Gibson Dunn firm – including Scott Edelman, Ted Boutrous, and Andrea Neumann, all of whom orchestrated the scheme -- used the fabricated “evidence” of the meeting to have an ethics complaint filed against California lawyer Dominguez, much as the firm is now doing to Donziger with testimony from an admittedly corrupt witness from Ecuador bribed with at least $2 million from Chevron to concoct his story. (The attempt to disbar Dominguez failed; the attempt to disbar Donziger in New York is pending but he still maintains his law license in another jurisdiction.)
Donziger, a Harvard Law graduate who has not received even a single client complaint in 25 years of legal practice, is fighting back against what he called a “wide-ranging conspiracy” hatched in Chevron’s executive suits and Gibson Dunn’s New York offices to try to taint him with “fraud” by using false or distorted evidence as a way to evade the liability to the Indigenous groups in Ecuador. Those involved in the conspiracy, he said, include Chevron General Counsel R. Hewitt Pate, Gibson Dunn’s chief of litigation Randy Mastro, as well as several Gibson Dunn lawyers who had previously been involved in corrupting the Dole cases, including Neumann and Boutrous. In a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, Donziger laid out evidence that the Gibson Dunn firm and Chevron have carried out a conspiracy to falsify evidence as part of its “kill step” strategy to attack the Ecuador pollution judgment, now worth $12 billion with statutory interest.
“What Chevron and Gibson Dunn are doing to Steven is lawless and the kind of thing one normally sees in North Korea or Saudi Arabia, not in New York,” said Rex Weyler, the co-founder of Greenpeace and a supporter of the Ecuadorian communities. “It is shocking to witness how the New York judiciary has allowed itself to be used by Chevron and Gibson Dunn as a key arm of the company’s unethical litigation strategy that ultimately is designed to screw over some of the most vulnerable people on the planet who trust and rely on Steven to advocate for them. The Department of Justice needs to open an investigation of this law firm for its pattern of engaging in unethical and even criminal acts in the Ecuador case and others.”
The Gibson Dunn “kill step” in the Ecuador case resulted in a highly controversial civil “racketeering” judgment in 2014 from New York trial judge Lewis A. Kaplan against Donziger and his Ecuadorian clients that was based largely on the false testimony of Chevron’s paid witness, Alberto Guerra. Guerra’s payments have included an enormous monthly salary at least 20 times higher than his prior salary in Ecuador, health care, and the reimbursement of all income tax payments as well as expenses to move his entire family from Ecuador to the United States. Guerra admitted to taking bribes in Ecuador and has been on the Chevron payroll for several years at an undisclosed location in the United States without doing any work other than serving as a witness. (See this summary of Guerra’s perjury and this legal brief documenting Chevron’s and Gibson Dunn’s corrupt conduct.)
Guerra also has admitted under oath that he was coached for 53 days by Gibson Dunn’s lawyers, including Mastro and Avi Weitzman, before he went into Kaplan’s court and accused Donziger of approving a bribe to an Ecuador trial judge so the plaintiffs could “ghostwrite” the judgment against the oil major. Later, Guerra recanted key parts of his testimony under oath in a private arbitration proceeding while a forensic report proved he lied about both the bribe and the allegation that Donziger orchestrated the “ghostwriting” of the judge. Donziger has consistently denied Guerra’s allegations.
Despite what appear to be the many deep-seated and even fatal problems with Guerra’s testimony, two staff attorneys at the New York bar grievance committee – who oversee attorney conduct – relied on his story about judicial bribery in Ecuador to suspend Donziger from the practice of law without a hearing by designating the New York lawyer an “immediate threat to the public order”. Yet Kaplan’s findings, used by the New York bar in its decision, have been rejected by at least 17 appellate judges in Ecuador and by Canada’s entire Supreme Court when it ruled unanimously in favor of the Ecuadorians in a judgment enforcement action in that country. Four layers of courts in Ecuador – including the country’s Constitutional Court – have affirmed voluminous evidence that the oil major dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the rainforest, decimating indigenous groups and causing an outbreak of cancer that has killed or threatens to kill thousands of people.
(See here and here for comments by prominent lawyers, including Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson and trial attorney Richard Friedman, in support of Donziger. See this article on how Ecuador’s Constitutional Court recently ruled 8-0 to affirm the judgment against Chevron. Here is a summary of the evidence against Chevron.)
Donziger, who has been widely lauded for his public service work, criticized the New York bar for refusing to consider the extensive evidence that emerged after Kaplan’s trial that renders his findings erroneous or at least highly problematic. Donziger maintains wide support in the legal and environmental communities; several prominent environmental groups and lawyers, including Amazon Watch and Earth Rights International, have weighed in against Chevron with amicus briefs while Greenpeace Founder Weyler calls him a “hero” of the environmental movement. Musician Roger Waters even released a video on behalf of the Ecuadorians criticizing Kaplan.
Among the evidence ignored by the two staff attorneys of the bar grievance committee who are handling the matter – Jorge Dopico and Naomi Goldstein -- is a critical report from noted forensics expert J. Christopher Racich submitted in a parallel private arbitration proceeding initiated by Chevron against Ecuador’s government. The Racich report completely undermines Chevron’s defense strategy and renders Kaplan’s findings that the Ecuador judgment was “ghostwritten” as false, according to Aaron Page, a human rights lawyer who represents the Ecuadorians. (See here for the Racich report proving Chevron’s witness lied and here for a summary of that report.)
Racich’s investigation undermines Kaplan’s core findings that were then used by the bar grievance committee to suspend Donziger as follows:
**The report demonstrates that increasing amounts of the Ecuador judgment against Chevron were added to Word documents on the office computers of the Ecuador trial judge and that those documents were edited and saved in painstaking fashion more than 400 times. This corroborates the sworn testimony of the Ecuador trial judge, Nicolas Zambrano, that he wrote the judgment in his office and debunks the testimony of paid Chevron witness Guerra that it was given to the judge on a flash drive just prior to its issuance, after being written by the plaintiffs.
**There is no evidence from the Ecuador trial judge’s computers that any document was copied from a flash drive to create any part of the trial court judgment, as Chevron paid witness Guerra had claimed in testimony relied on by the New York bar staff attorneys to suspend Donziger.
**Chevron’s paid expert, Spencer Lynch, independently examined the same computers and presented no evidence suggesting that any part of the Ecuador trial court judgment was received by trial judge Zambrano via email or from a flash drive – again debunking Guerra’s testimony.
**There is no document on the computer of Chevron witness Guerra that became the trial court judgment, directly undermining Guerra’s sworn testimony that he edited the judgment on his computer at the behest of the plaintiffs just before it was issued.
According to the Racich report, the text and metadata of the documents on the computers of Ecuador trial judge Zambrano that contain the trial court judgment show that “these computers were used to create a document, add text to it, edit text within it, and save the document repeatedly over a four-month period of time.” “Furthermore, there is no evidence in the metadata that the versions of the [judgment documents] were provided in any way by Mr. Guerra, Pablo Fajardo [the lead Ecuadorian lawyer for the villagers], or anybody else,” Racich concluded.
Donziger criticized the bar grievance committee for relying on Kaplan’s findings and ignoring the Racich report and other critical evidence, while demanding that his designation as an “immediate threat to the public order” be lifted. He also demanded to be allowed a fact hearing to present the Racich report and other critical evidence that will demonstrate that Kaplan’s findings are erroneous and therefore cannot be used by the bar grievance committee as a basis for attorney discipline, although he believes they could be used as a basis for discipline against the Gibson Dunn lawyers who falsified evidence. Further underscoring the problems with the decision of the New York grievance committee is that the District of Columbia bar has decided to not move against Donziger based on the Kaplan decision given that the many problems with his findings and the fact that several issues involved are still being litigated in Canadian courts.
(For a detailed rebuttal of Kaplan’s erroneous findings, see Chevron’s RICO Fraud.)
“The bar grievance committee needs to demonstrate independence from Judge Kaplan and Chevron’s powerful and unethical law firm and really look hard at the evidence,” said Donziger. “In my opinion, it is a dereliction of duty for the New York grievance committee to assume that obviously flawed findings from a federal judge cannot be questioned when the judge never reviewed the Racich report or other critical evidence before coming to his conclusions, and when his findings have been contradicted by 17 appellate judges in another jurisdiction.
“Further, in my view there is indisputable evidence that Chevron’s lawyers at Gibson Dunn engaged in unethical and criminal activity to frame me with false witness testimony to please their most lucrative client, and that they have done this in other cases as part of a playbook marketed to high-paying corporations,” he added. “This begs the question: why is the New York bar grievance committee not investigating Chevron’s lawyers at Gibson Dunn for their patently unethical conduct, and instead focusing on me, a sole practitioner and human rights advocate?”
Gibson Dunn’s aggressive approach and willingness to cross the ethical line for its clients has frequently backfired against the law firm.
In a case eerily similar to Donziger’s experience, Gibson Dunn recently was sanctioned by the High Court of London for fabricating evidence to try to frame a political opponent of its client, then the President of the African nation of Djoubati. The Montana Supreme Court fined the firm $9.9 million for engaging in “legal thuggery” while a New York federal judge sanctioned Gibson Dunn for engaging in “unacceptable shenanigans” including hiding documents and outright lies. In the Ecuador case, the firm threatened the Ecuador trial judge with prison time unless he ruled in Chevron’s favor. (See this article by Greenpeace’s Weyler for a summary of Gibson Dunn’s many problems.)
Some of Donziger’s defenders, including human rights lawyer Page (see here), say he has been targeted with what is probably the most well-financed corporate retaliation campaign in history. Chevron in 2011 sued Donziger for $60 billion – thought to be the largest potential personal liability ever – before dropping the entire damages claim on the eve of Kaplan’s “racketeering” trial to avoid a jury of impartial fact-finders. Under the U.S. Constitution, a claim not involving money damages can be heard by a judge alone – a fact understood by Chevron that Donziger said guaranteed he would not be able to mount a meaningful defense given Kaplan’s obvious bias in favor of the company. (See this press release and this report for the many procedural and ethical problems with the Kaplan trial.)
The Racich report also corroborates :{the sworn testimony of Donziger:(style="padding:0px;margin:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:, who repeatedly has said under oath he engaged in no wrongdoing and that Guerra's testimony was false. For Donziger’s main appellate brief challenging Kaplan’s factual findings, see :{here:(style="padding:0px;margin:0px;border:0px;font-weight:inherit;font-style:inherit;vertical-align:baseline"):}:.
For purposes of protecting his due process rights and bearing witness to a flawed process, Donziger said he plans to invite the public to his post-suspension hearing where he will try to reverse the bar’s decision to designate him as an “immediate threat to the public order.” However, the first “referee” appointed to oversee that hearing, corporate defense attorney Paul Doyle, resigned after several prominent lawyers backed Donziger and criticized the lack of due process afforded by the grievance committee. It also turns out that Doyle had represented Union Carbide in the Bhopal disaster in India.
==
REPORT
CHEVRON’S LAWYER, SPEAKING FOR MAJOR OIL COMPANIES, SAYS CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL AND IT’S YOUR FAULT
In a court hearing in San Francisco, oil companies publicly backed the science of climate change
By Sarah Jeong and Rachel Becker Mar 22, 2018, 2:23pm EDT
Illustrations by Alex Castro and Garret Beard
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/17151532/climate-tutorial-san-francisco-oakland-lawsuits-judge-alsup-chevron-exxon
In a federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday, major oil companies concurred with the “scientific consensus,” saying it was “extremely likely” that human activity has been driving global warming since the middle of the 20th century. They just don’t think they can be sued for it.
:{
}:
“Chevron accepts what the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] has reached consensus on concerning science and climate change,” said Theodore Boutrous, who represents Chevronand is heading up the assorted legal team for the five oil companies that are defendants in this lawsuit. But, he said, that didn’t mean that a civil lawsuit was the right way to address climate change. “It’s a global issue that requires global action,” he said.
Over the course of two hours, Boutrous ran through the findings of the most recent IPCC report (released in 2013), acknowledging that global temperatures were rising due to carbon dioxide caused by human activity, that other factors were negligible, and that as a result, sea levels were rising. No time was given to any denials of climate science, with Boutrous sticking closely to the substance of the IPCC report. Even his attempt at implying that his client was not at fault was framed within the substance of the IPCC report; he said that the report never said “extraction or production” of oil was the cause of carbon dioxide emissions, but rather the “economic activity” that burned fossil fuels.
MAJOR OIL COMPANIES WENT ON THE RECORD TO SAY THAT HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL
Judge William Alsup, who is presiding over the lawsuit, is giving the other oil companies — ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP — a week to quibble with anything Boutrous said in court about climate change. “Chevron welcomes meaningful efforts to address the issue of climate change, but litigation is not an appropriate tool for accomplishing that objective,” Sean Comey, a spokesperson for Chevron, said in an emailed statement to The Verge. “Chevron provided a neutral assessment of the science based on the most recent comprehensive scientific assessment.” The other companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Wednesday’s session was not a trial, or really even a hearing in the typical sense of the word. It was, in Judge Alsup’s terminology, a “tutorial” — a session in which the legal teams for both sides present background facts for his edification. It’s not discovery, it’s not evidence, and just because it was presented Wednesday, it’s not necessarily admissible for a jury in the future should this case go to trial. Nonetheless, the hearing marked a moment in which major oil companies went on the record to say that human-caused climate change is real. At this point, the science is so undeniable that it no longer makes sense for oil companies to try and refute it.
“RHETORICAL CLAIMS DON’T CUT THE MUSTARD.”
This is thefirst time Judge Alsup — or any judge, really — has held a climate change tutorial. These types of sessions are not typical in the legal system, but Alsup has requested tutorials in other cases in the past, including tutorials on immigration for a DACA case and LIDAR for the Waymo v. Uber case. Alsup’s approach to science has not gone unappreciated in this case. Myles Allen, a climate scientist from the University of Oxford, who presented before the judge on Wednesday, says, “The court is evidently taking our science as seriously as they’re taking the science involved in patent law cases, where the court really does have to understand the technicalities and where rhetorical claims don’t cut the mustard.”
At the start of the tutorial, Alsup warned the press, “You will probably find this boring,” reiterating that this was all so “the poor judge can learn some science.” (Judge Alsup was previously an engineering major at Mississippi State, ultimately graduating with a math degree.) Although Alsup promised that “if you get bored, you can just leave,” the throng of observers that packed the gallery and an additional overflow room barely thinned through a five-hour session that started early in the morning.
Lawyers for the cities of San Francisco and Oakland were largely silent at the tutorial, with Steve Berman, representing the San Francisco city attorney’s office, stepping up to the podium only to introduce climate scientist after climate scientist.
Only Boutrous spoke on the defendants’ side, not bothering to bring on any scientists to speak for the oil companies. Boutrous appeared to have studied the IPCC’s 2013 AR5 report from start to finish, and he stuck closely to what he characterized as the scientific consensus. (When it was his turn, Don Weubbles of the University of Illinois sniped at the limited scope of Boutrous’ presentation, saying pointedly that “science did not stop” after 2013.)
It became swiftly apparent that the judge was taking the opportunity to satisfy his curiosity on absolutely anything that had occurred to him, prompting Allen at one point to spread his arms out in a wobbling motion to describe the motion of carbon dioxide molecules when they absorb infrared radiation. At another point, Judge Alsup and Allen went on a long, wandering detour about whether the relationship between two variables was logarithmic or linear.
The wide range of questions put Boutrous at a disadvantage. At one point, the judge interrupted him with a question about undersea lava flows and ocean temperatures, citing an interesting “geology show” he had seen on television a few weeks ago. Because this fell far outside the scope of any of the presentations or the IPCC report, his question went unanswered.
The unnamed geology show wasn’t the only kind of preparation that Alsup had made. He also mentioned that he had rewatched An Inconvenient Truth, and acknowledged that he had been reading several books on climate science and its history, even challenging Boutrous at one point about a scientist that he had left out in his rundown of the history of climate science.
“You jumped over 1938. Who was in 1938?” he asked the lawyer.
“... 1938?” Boutrous asked.
“There was a guy named Callendar,” Alsup prompted. “The Callendar effect is named after him.”
The science experts didn’t seem used to lecturing to a single student who is completely unabashed about asking any question that pops into his head. They occasionally had trouble indulging or recovering from tangential lines of questions, but still, they had a wider range of knowledge to draw from when put on the spot. Although Boutrous — a noted Supreme Court litigator — couldn’t answer questions about undersea lava flows or why the rise of sea water is inconsistent across the planet, he was at least at ease with a judicial style of questioning, and his strategy was clear: if the oil companies were going to go on the record with a vocal acceptance of climate science, they would take the opportunity to have a professional rhetorician sow doubt about where oil companies fit into the blame game.
The thrust of Boutrous’ presentation wasn’t that climate science was wrong — he, too, took a turn running through graphs showing the precipitous rise in global temperatures and sea levels — but he also took care to show the rate of emissions in China and India, lingering particularly on a graph that said that China’s emissions currently exceed the United States. He said that this was largely due to the burning of coal, which is being reduced in the US. In fact, Boutrous even credited hydraulic fracking with reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the US.
Boutrous seemed to say that fossil fuel companies aren’t responsible for how people use their products. “IPCC doesn’t say that the extraction or production of fossil fuels leads to emissions,” Boutrous said. “It’s energy use, the economic activity, that drives the demand for fuel that leads to emissions.”
“WE’RE JUST MAKING THE CIGARETTES, PEOPLE ARE CHOOSING TO SMOKE.”
It’s an argument we’ve heard before from tobacco companies, says Peter Frumhoff, chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Tobacco companies for years said that ‘We’re just making the cigarettes; people are choosing to smoke,’” Frumhoff says. And for years, courts sided with the companies, he says — until public opinion began to change. “It was the consequence of their efforts to disinform that led juries and judges — who are members of the public — to say, ‘Wait a minute,’” Frumhoff says. The lawsuit itself says bluntly that the defendants “borrowed the Big Tobacco playbook in order to promote their products.” The complaint accuses the oil companies of “promoting massive use of fossil fuels by misleading the public about global warming by emphasizing the uncertainties of climate science.”
In response, Boutrous’ presentation on the history of climate science focused on the controversy around the theory that climate change was caused by humans. Chevron may be willing to say nowthat climate change was caused by humans, but surely it wasn’t wrong to say otherwise then. For example, both Boutrous and Allen mentioned Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius who, at the turn of the 20th century, grew increasingly concerned that anthropogenic carbon emissions could increase global temperatures.
But Boutrous took time to emphasize that, until about the 1960s, most scientists didn’t believe him. This isn’t strictly wrong — although Judge Alsup himself noted that in 1938, Guy Callendar linked climate change to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Even NASA’s Earth Observatory agrees that Arrhenius was largely disregarded until the second half of the century. “It’s trial and error. Scientists debating each other,” Boutrous said in court. “Questioning other scientists’ views is part of the scientific process.” (Boutrous did not call any scientific experts on behalf of the oil companies to speak before Judge Alsup Wednesday about how the scientific process is conducted or anything else.)
“WHAT’S ACTUALLY SAID IS NOT NEARLY AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS TO SUPPORT IT.”
Boutrous drew quotes from IPCC reports across the years, showing the increasingly strong language that was used to characterize its conclusions about climate change. In 1995, the IPCC said that “the balance of evidence suggests” human-caused climate change, the 2007 report goes with the phrase “very likely,” and by 2013, it becomes “extremely likely.” In other words, the oil companies are emphasizing that it’s taken time for scientists to reach a consensus on climate change. It’s a strategy that climate law expert Jessica Wentz at Columbia Law School was expecting. “Not directly attacking the science, but undermining it by emphasizing uncertainty,” she says.
The legalistic reading of the IPCC’s statements was frustrating to Allen, he said in an interview with The Vergeafter the tutorial concluded, because to scientists, the evidence and context are more important than the language. “The question of whether somebody writing a scientific paper uses the word ‘likely’ or ‘very likely’ is kind of neither here nor there,” Allen says. “What’s actually said is not nearly as important as what the evidence is to support it.”
Still, on the basic facts, the two sides agreed more than they disagreed — which kept arguments over whether or not climate change was real from derailing the hearing. This wasn’t for lack of trying on the part of the deniers: academics William Happer, Richard S. Lindzen, and Steven E. Koonin requested leave to file their own scientific presentation, which questions anthropogenic climate change. Happer and Lindzen are climate deniers; Koonin claims climate science is “not settled.” Another group of deniers, led by a British viscount with a degree in classical architecture, asked to file an amicus brief in the case. Neither group has yet received permission to contribute to the case, but the judge has asked both to disclose their funding sources and any links to either of the parties in the case. Notably, Koonin disclosed that he had “some money vested in a BP pension plan arising from his employment that ended nine years ago.” (He was chief scientist at BP for five years, according to his NYU bio.)
THE JUDGE WORE HIS “SCIENCE TIE”
Alsup insisted that this tutorial was a purely educational opportunity, and his enjoyment of the session was obvious. (For the special occasion, he wore his “science tie” under his robes, printed with a graphic of the Solar System.) But the hearing could have impacts beyond the judge’s personal edification, Wentz says. “It’s a matter of public record, so you certainly could refer to it in a court of public opinion, or the court of law in the future,” she says. Now, Wentz says, there’s a formal declaration in the public record from a Chevron lawyer, stating once and for all: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.
==
bs
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a partner in the Los Angeles office of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, is Co-Chair of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Group, Crisis Management Group, and Transnational Litigation Group. He is a member of the firm’s Executive and Management Committees. Mr. Boutrous has represented clients in the federal and state appellate courts throughout the nation in a wide spectrum of cases. He has argued more than seventy appeals, including before the Supreme Court of the United States, ten different federal circuit courts of appeals, eight different state supreme courts and a multitude of other appellate and trial courts. He has successfully persuaded courts to overturn some of the largest jury verdicts and class actions in history. In 2011, he successfully represented Walmart before the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dukes case, which unanimously reversed what had been the largest employment class action in history and established important standards governing class actions (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. D**ukes). In 2013, he successfully represented the prevailing party in obtaining a unanimous Supreme Court decision enforcing the Class Action Fairness Act (Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles). Also in 2013, Mr. Boutrous successfully represented plaintiffs in the Supreme Court in a case invalidating California’s prohibition on same-sex marriage, Proposition 8 (Hollingsworth v. Perry). In other ongoing constitutional litigation, Mr. Boutrous represents California schoolchildren asserting a state constitutional challenge to laws that prevent school administrators from hiring and retaining the most effective teachers (Students Matter Website). (See attached list of representative cases.) Mr. Boutrous also represents media organizations, reporters, and others in First Amendment matters such as reporters’ privilege battles, defamation cases, litigation seeking public access to judicial records and court proceedings, and asylum proceedings for journalists in danger. As both a crisis management strategistand a seasoned appellate and media lawyer, Mr. Boutrous has extensive experience handling high-profile litigation, media relations and media legal issues. He routinely advises clients in planning how to respond, and in responding, to crises and other especially significant legal problems that attract the media spotlight. According to The National Law Journal, which in 2013 named him one of the “100 Most Influential Lawyers in America,” he “is known for his wise, strategic advice to clients in crisis and is a media law star.” Numerous other profiles of Mr. Boutrous and his practice have appeared in the media. Prominent mentions include: “After Chevron Win, Dole Victory Caps Big Week for Gibson Dunn,” Am Law Litigation Daily(March 9, 2014); “Practice Group Performs In Spotlight and Under Pressure,” Los Angeles Daily Journal (March 2012); “Litigator of the Week,” Am Law Litigation Daily(June 2011); “Lawyer of the Week,” The Times of London(June 2011); “Appellate Lawyer of the Week,” National Law Journal(March 2011); “Litigation Department of the Year,” The American Lawyer (January 2012); “Litigation Department of the Year,” The American Lawyer (January 2010); “He’s a Hired Gun of the Highest Caliber,” The Los Angeles Times (June 24, 2007); “Special Appeal,” Los Angeles Business Journal(July 26, 2004); and “Jackson Case Stirs First Amendment Guru,” Daily Journal Extra (February 23, 2004). Mr. Boutrous is a Fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. Chambers USA ranks Mr. Boutrous as a leading lawyer in five different categories, describing him as “a combination of smart and pragmatic” with “a complete command of the facts and law,” a “true innovator,” a “go-to guy on cutting-edge cases,” a “formidable litigator,” and “a hugely accomplished appellate lawyer . . . familiar with appeals at all levels and venues.” Legal 500 has named Mr. Boutrous a “Leading Lawyer” for Supreme Court and Appellate litigation for the past three years in a row, calling him a “renowned advocate” and “the preeminent authority on punitive damages defenses in the U.S.” In 2012, Mr. Boutrous was named an “Attorney of the Year” by both the California Lawyer and the San Francisco Recorder, and the Los Angelesand San Francisco Daily Journalsnamed Mr. Boutrous one of the 100 best lawyers in California for the ninth year in a row. In naming him to its list of the 500 Leading Lawyers in America,Lawdragon calls him “One of the best media and appellate attorneys in the nation.” And the Los Angeles Business Journal describes him as “one of the nation’s most prominent appellate attorneys.” Mr. Boutrous is a frequent commentator on legal issues. His articles include “California Kids Go to Court to Demand a Good Education,” Wall Street Journal (January 28, 2014); "A Radical Departure on Press Freedom," Wall Street Journal(May 23, 2013); “A Killer’s Notebook, a Reporter’s Rights,” New York Times (April 9, 2013), “President Correa’s Libel Suit and the Fraud Against Chevron,” Forbes (March 6, 2012); “Broadcast ‘Indecency’ on Trial,” Wall Street Journal (January 17, 2012); “The Four Myths Surrounding the Common Law Reporter’s Privilege,” Media Law Resources Center(January 2007); “First Amendment on Trial,” Wall Street Journal (August 19, 2006); “What’s Next for Punitive Damage Awards,” Wall Street Journal (May 29, 1996); “Rule 6(e) and the Public’s Right to Know,” Wall Street Journal (August 17, 1998); and “Celebrity Justice: A New Double Standard,” ABA Communications Lawyer(Fall 2004). Mr. Boutrous is a member of the Board of Directors of theInternational Women’s Media Foundation and the Board of Directors of the California Supreme Court Historical Society. He also is a member of the Business Advisory Council of ProPublica, a non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism. Mr. Boutrous received his law degree, summa cum laude, from the University of San Diego School of Law in 1987, where he was Valedictorian and Editor-in-Chief of the San Diego Law Review. Representative Appellate and Constitutional Cases[PDF] Representative Media Cases[PDF] 7/16 Ted? Boutrous embarrassed himself in Huffington Post this week in an apparent attempt to “up the crazy” as the trial to seize Chevron’s assets in Canada looms. It appears the “Big Lie” sickness of Donald Trump-ism continues to grow in America. The lawyer for Gibson Dunn, a firm known for its corporate attack dog efforts, has taken lying and slander to a new level. To Boutrous, giantfossil fuel corporations are the victims of legal attacks by environmental and human rights groups and the actual human rights violations or environmental destruction is either insignificant, or nonexistent in Ted’s view. To top it off, Boutrous – defender of Chevron – worst global polluter ever – is lecturing that “the ends don’t justify the means.” It’s not a coincidence that Chevron will find itself in court once again in a matter of weeks trying to justify the unjustifiable - dumping 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Ecuadorian Amazon over the course of decades. Boutrous has now tagged himself as the kind of lawyer who blames the rape victim for dressing the “wrong way”. Or the kind of lawyer who blames the black man shot by police for being where he shouldn’t have been and “looking like a threat.” He has the audacity to blame the people Chevron deliberately poisoned by intentionally dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Despite the fact that it is the largest oil-related disaster in history, which remains yet today in the form of almost 1,000 toxic waste pits, Boutrous claims there’s “a lack of evidence.” To the families of the over 1,400 people who have already died of cancer in the Amazon – Boutrous denies your suffering. To the indigenous communities wiped out by Chevron’s operations (and Texaco) over decades, Boutrous never believed in you in the first place. To any environmental or human rights advocates who denounced the environmental “crime of the century” Boutrous says you are criminals. For the record, here are but a few of the incontrovertible facts to which Texaco has already confessed and to which any non-corrupted lawyer would concede: <ul style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 2em;"><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Texaco operated oil wells in the Ecuadorian Amazon and <a href="http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/HBT-Agra-Vol-1-Draft-Oct-1993.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:6;elm:context_link;itc:0" data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="4" data-v9y="1" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">designed a system to dump all their toxic drilling waters into the local environment</a> where 30,000 Ecuadorians lived.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">From 1964 to 1992, Texaco <a href="http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/Fugro-McLelland-Field-Audit-1964-1990.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:6;elm:context_link;itc:0" data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="5" data-v9y="1" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">dumped over 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into open air, unlined waste pits designed to send runoff into local waterways</a>. This was done deliberately to save approximately $3 per barrel and increase profits.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Texaco estimated it would cost a little more than $4 million to line the pits and <a href="http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/0717-texaco-memo-1972.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:6;elm:context_link;itc:0" data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="6" data-v9y="1" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">decided it was too expensive</a>.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman"><b>Texaco told its employees not to report spills in the Amazon,</b> <a href="http://chevrontoxico.com/assets/docs/0717-texaco-memo-1972.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:6;elm:context_link;itc:0" data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="7" data-v9y="0" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">ordered its employees to destroy existing reports documenting oil spills</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlJX5yxFCwc" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" data-ylk="subsec:paragraph;cpos:6;elm:context_link;itc:0" data-rapid-parsed="slk" data-rapid_p="8" data-v9y="0" style="box-sizing: inherit; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); text-decoration-line: none; box-shadow: rgb(13, 190, 152) 0px -2px 0px inset;">instructed local workers to dump the waste</a>.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman">Texaco never apologized to a single person from the affected communities for its deliberate acts of pollution.</font></li><li style="box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 5px; padding: 0px; font-size: 16px; line-height: 24px;"><font size="4" face="Times New Roman" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 102);">Texaco left in 1992 and signed a $40 million deal with the government of Ecuador to “clean up” a small portion of the pits (that agreement specified that it did not protect Texaco from any civil action).</font></li></ul> In fact, Chevron videos taken in 2005 and leaked by a whistleblower prove even the few pits Texaco claimed to have cleaned were still toxic years after the alleged “remediation”. Texaco argued for a decade in US Federal Court in New York that Ecuador was the proper venue for the case and agreed that it would honor the decisions of the Ecuadorian court system. However, on the first day of the new trial in Ecuador, Texaco insisted that the case should not be heard in Ecuador either. Chevron’s RICO trial specifically excluded any evidence of the contamination in Ecuador and in no way exonerated nor even suggested that Chevron/Texaco was not responsible for the contamination in Ecuador. Chevron’s key witness in its RICO case, disgraced ex-judge Alberto Guerra, received over $2 million from Chevron for his testimony, admitted to lying about alleged bribes from lawyers for the Ecuadorians, and admitted that he embellished his story to get Chevron to pay him more. Forensic evidence obtained by analysts of the presiding judge’s computer disprove any allegation of “ghost-writing” as the verdict was a document saved hundreds of times over a four month period and no external devices were attached (as Guerra claimed at one point). In 2013, a US District Court found that Chevron had not shown that Amazon Watch had done anything wrong in relation to the Chevron litigation or that Amazon Watch had engaged in fraudulent conduct or furthered a conspiracy against Chevron. In an 11-page order, Judge Cousins quashed Chevron’s attempts to open up Amazon Watch’s files, and threatened sanctions against Gibson Dunn and Chevron if they reissued subpoenas unless they were “significantly narrower in scope to seek only highly relevant information and more carefully tailored to avoid infringing upon the organization’s First Amendment rights.” None of this can be contested by Boutrous, no matter how much he may wish he could. And every single one of these facts are ones Chevron and Gibson Dunn hopes desperately that the public (and justices in Canada) will ignore or forget. Yet despite knowing them, and all those ethical guidelines Ted theoretically understands, he is willing to write that there’s a “lack of evidence” against his client Chevron and the environmental NGOs asserting otherwise are criminals for doing so. Like Chevron executives, who have spent billions to try to escape justice in Ecuador, Boutrous is impervious to shame. His firm has harassed people, threatened judges, bribed witnesses, falsified evidence (not the first, or second time), It’s unclear which is a greater danger to our society, the ability for oil companies to intentionally and catastrophically pollute, or the willingness of large law firms like Gibson Dunn to cheat, lie and generally abuse the legal system in order to deny the existence of the continuing suffering of tens of thousands of people. Add to that the vilification and intimidation of anyone who dares to speak against them. Sounds like Donald Trump’s ideal America to me. Ted Boutrous is not an idiot, but he has demonstrated absolutely no moral compass whatsoever. In the fever to defend his client – a company that admitted to the deliberate pollution in the first place – he has gone completely off the deep end. And he has embarrassed himself in the process. That’s probably why he (or his staff) have obsessively deleted every comment to his post on Huffington – a delicious irony from a “First Amendment lawyer.” The notion that anyone would accept his premise when Chevron has lost every legal contest apart from Kaplan’s (which is still under appeal, and was just handed another major blow by a recent SCOTUS decision about the use of RICO in such circumstances) is frankly preposterous. No, we can’t afford to sue Ted and Gibson Dunn for their acts of libel and intimidation, and they know it. The system of justice here completely favors the Chevrons of our society. That’s why they are infuriated that the people of Ecuador actually persevered. Despite all Chevron and Gibson Dunn did to prevent it, they couldn’t stop the $9.5 billion judgement against them. They won’t be able to stop the action to enforce that verdict in Canada to seize Chevron’s assets there, but Ted Boutrous and his buddies intend to get much richer trying. Ted’s post is a sign that the Chevron attack dogs are foaming at the mouth the closer we get to a trial in Canada (it begins in September). Last year, when the Supreme Court of Canada sided unanimously with the Ecuadorians to allow them to sue to enforce their verdict, it sent shock waves through Chevron’s board room. The phone calls to Gibson Dunn have probably been non-stop ever since. Ted Boutrous is using Huffington Post to spread more lies that Chevron hopes will sow more doubt about this case. “Perhaps there is no evidence in Ecuador after all.” That’s what they hope journalists or justices in Canada will think. Perhaps global warming is a hoax, too. “I read on the internet,” says Donald Trump. That is the era we live in. Anyone can appreciate the irony when Ted Boutrous calls Trump out for his racist comments about a judge while he dismisses Ecuador’s entire judicial system, local communities and indigenous peoples as either too corrupt or too “unsophisticated” to make a just ruling based on the overwhelming evidence in the Amazon. Trump doesn’t appear embarrassed, but Ted certainly has been. [Gibson Dunn | Boutrous Jr., Theodore J.](https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/boutrous-jr-theodore-j/) https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/boutrous-jr-theodore-j/ <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UUrKVLZxAxoJ:https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/boutrous-jr-theodore-j/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:UUrKVLZxAxoJ:https://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyer/boutrous-jr-theodore-j/%2B%26cd%3D1%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDAAegQIBBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> Chevron's lawyer says climate change is real, and it's your fault - The ... https://www.theverge.com/.../climate-tutorial-san-francisco-oakland-lawsuits-judge-als... <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b8w06kfr8DwJ:https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/17151532/climate-tutorial-san-francisco-oakland-lawsuits-judge-alsup-chevron-exxon+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:b8w06kfr8DwJ:https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/22/17151532/climate-tutorial-san-francisco-oakland-lawsuits-judge-alsup-chevron-exxon%2B%26cd%3D2%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDABegQIARAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> Report Shows Chevron Lawyers at Gibson Dunn Falsified Evidence to ... https://www.csrwire.com/.../41282-Report-Shows-Chevron-Lawyers-at-Gibson-Dunn-... <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2i8VP4QmVPAJ:https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/41282-Report-Shows-Chevron-Lawyers-at-Gibson-Dunn-Falsified-Evidence-to-Target-Steven-Donziger-in-Ecuador-Pollution-Case+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:2i8VP4QmVPAJ:https://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/41282-Report-Shows-Chevron-Lawyers-at-Gibson-Dunn-Falsified-Evidence-to-Target-Steven-Donziger-in-Ecuador-Pollution-Case%2B%26cd%3D3%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDACegQIAhAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> Feud escalates between Chevron, Ecuador lawyers - Reuters https://www.reuters.com/...chevron-lawyers/feud-escalates-between-chevron-ecuador-l... <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:QBxkho_sqHwJ:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chevron-lawyers/feud-escalates-between-chevron-ecuador-lawyers-idUSTRE7956CB20111006+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:QBxkho_sqHwJ:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-chevron-lawyers/feud-escalates-between-chevron-ecuador-lawyers-idUSTRE7956CB20111006%2B%26cd%3D4%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDADegQIAxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> [PDF]ten lessons from the chevron litigation - Stanford Law School https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/boutrous.pdf <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0Cpr63X1to8J:https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/boutrous.pdf+&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:0Cpr63X1to8J:https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/boutrous.pdf%2B%26cd%3D5%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDAEegQIBhAF" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> by TJ Boutrous Jr - Related articles Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., a partner in the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher ... other plaintiffs' attorneys, including those in the Chevron litigation and a prior. Chevron, Dole cases expose legal corruption: Column https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/15/chevron...lawyer.../7758335/ <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jU7L0wIn-A0J:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/15/chevron-dole-cases-expose-lawyer-corruption-column/7758335/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:jU7L0wIn-A0J:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/15/chevron-dole-cases-expose-lawyer-corruption-column/7758335/%2B%26cd%3D6%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDAFegQIABAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> [:{:{Theodore}: J. :{Boutrous}: Jr. Published 8:31 p.m. ET April 15, 2014 | Updated 8:47 a.m. ET April 16, ... The U.S. lawyer behind the Chevron case, Steven Donziger, and his ... to be a "heinous conspiracy" orchestrated by lawyers in the U.S. and ...}:](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jU7L0wIn-A0J:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/04/15/chevron-dole-cases-expose-lawyer-corruption-column/7758335/+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us) Judge Hears Bid By Five Oil Companies For Dismissal Of Oakland, Sf ... https://www.sfgate.com/.../Judge-Hears-Bid-By-Five-Oil-Companies-For-12942278.p... <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GD0Pea0BOssJ:https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Judge-Hears-Bid-By-Five-Oil-Companies-For-12942278.php+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:GD0Pea0BOssJ:https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Judge-Hears-Bid-By-Five-Oil-Companies-For-12942278.php%2B%26cd%3D7%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDAGegQICBAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> Chevron's Ted Boutrous Thoroughly Embarrassed Himself Last Week ... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chevrons-ted-boutrous-tho_b_10897296 <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:98_K89DKXz0J:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chevrons-ted-boutrous-tho_b_10897296+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:98_K89DKXz0J:https://www.huffpost.com/entry/chevrons-ted-boutrous-tho_b_10897296%2B%26cd%3D8%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDAHegQIBxAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> Oil industry lawyer emphasizes climate change 'uncertainties' in ... https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article206291454.html Mar 21, 2018 - The presentation by Chevron lawyer Ted Boutrous foreshadowed the strategy that oil companies will likely employ in trying to fend off climate ... Missing: attorney | Must include: attorney [Ted Boutrous | Above the Law](https://abovethelaw.com/tag/ted-boutrous/) https://abovethelaw.com/tag/ted-boutrous/ <ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px;"><li class="action-menu-item ab_dropdownitem" role="menuitem" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; list-style: none; user-select: none; cursor: pointer;"><a class="fl" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JFIvO50V_C8J:https://abovethelaw.com/tag/ted-boutrous/+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" ping="/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search%3Fq%3Dcache:JFIvO50V_C8J:https://abovethelaw.com/tag/ted-boutrous/%2B%26cd%3D10%26hl%3Den%26ct%3Dclnk%26gl%3Dus&ved=2ahUKEwjz5NH6g7riAhUSSq0KHdShBLUQIDAJegQIBRAE" style="text-decoration-line: none; cursor: pointer; display: block; padding: 7px 18px; outline: 0px;"></a></li></ol> |
