To our Canadian friends, Happy Dominion Day!

To Walter Olson, happy 10th anniversary of Overlawyered.com, the Web’s single most effective puncher-of-holes in the excesses of the litigation industry.

UPDATE (1:20 p.m.): Back from the Canadian Embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue, the nicest piece of real estate in Washington. That’s Ambassador Michael Wilson talking about the U.S.-Canada alliance, partnership, amity.

Dignitaries took a moment to honor the memory of Arthur Erickson, the architect of the Embassy Building. Erickson died May 20th at the age of 84.

The House Homeland Security Committee continues its markup at 5:30 p.m. of H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act, a seemingly well-intentioned piece of legislation that will make U.S. production and storage of chemicals more expensive and burdensome with no appreciable benefit to public safety and national security. Extension of the current 2006 regulations would allow the increased safety measures known as the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards, or CFATS, to be implemented fully in a logical, effective way. The Obama Administration supports such an extension.

We posted on the bill here and here, and have also noted the writing of E.F. Glynn, blogging at KansasMeadowlark, concerned about the impact of yet more government regulation on farmers and the ag economy. In a new post, “Homeland Security may impose new regulations on agriculture,” Glynn includes videos from last week’s committee meeting and expresses astonishment that the debate seems to be driven by a left-leaning think tank: “A Center for American Progress study that shows no economists or engineers on the project team, nor any economic or engineering analysis, is enough for Congress to decide national chemical security policy?”

Well, count up the usual suspects. The believers in regulations first and always at OMB Watch say, “Chemical Security Bill Withstanding Industry Assault“: “With luck and the continued hard work of the ‘Blue Green Coalition’ of labor, environmental, and public interest groups, the bill hopefully will emerge from this committee mostly unscathed.” See, obviously this coalition formed because of their mutual interest in fighting terrorism.

There’s also the U.S. PIRG news release, “U.S. PIRG Urges Passage of Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Act of 2009.”

Both groups support the “citizen suits” provisions which create a second regulatory system, that imposed by environmentalist lawsuits. Blogger P.J. Coyle also wonders about the impetus behind the newly added “citizen suits” provision at his blog, “Chemical Facility Security News.”

As committee members debate this legislation that will add costs to a major employer during a serious recession, we would remind them of these facts, courtesy the American Chemistry Council:

That’s 5.66 million jobs.

Brooks Schuelke, a personal injury attorney in Austin, Texas, writing at the trial lawyers’ blogging consortium, Injury Board.com, “Washington, DC Train/Rail Disaster Kills At Least Seven & Injures More. What Does It Mean For Austin?”

I’ve been emailing my friend Rick Shapiro, a Northern Virginia/DC personal injury lawyer, who happens to be one of the top railroad injury lawyers in the country. Rick’s a former head of the American Association for Justice Railroad Law section (and now one of Rick’s partners currently holds that post), and he’s written extensively on railroad safety. It’s really too early to tell what’s going on with this particular Metro crash, but Rick tells me that one of the things that concerns him is that the Metro was working on the tracks near the incident. This work could have likely caused some type of problem. As far as the operator’s failure goes, Rick says that he’s had previous cases involving Metro train wrecks where the Metro drivers were so overworked that fatigue played a big part in the wreck. I also saw a note that the operator of the train involved was one of the most inexperienced in the Metro system.

Well, those are reasonable observations. It IS too early to tell what’s going on, and there ARE reasons for concern. But surely as night follows day…

The movie “Crude” uses documentary film techniques to launch a one-sided, fact-challenged but well-crafted attack against Chevron for environmental damage supposedly caused by the operations of Texaco in Ecuador. (Chevron bought Texaco in 2001.) The directors have been showing the movie to friendly audiences around the film-festival circuit, including last week at the American Film Institute’s “SilverDocs“* festival in Silver Spring, Md.

Perhaps despite themselves, the moviemakers reveal an awful lot about the nature of the litigation scheme.

The photo shows U.S. trial lawyer Steven Donziger, the moving force behind the lawsuit filed on behalf of the Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia (AKA Amazon Defense Coalition), being introduced to Rafael Correa, the president of Ecuador. As the post immediately below describes, Correa is a radical, anti-American politician in the mode of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez and Bolivia’s Evo Morales.

In the movie Donziger and his Ecuadorian colleague, Pablo Fajardo, fly to Philadelphia to solicit more financial support for their litigation from Joe Kohn, a partner in Kohn, Swift and Graf. Kohn cheerfully explains to the camera that the lawsuit is, indeed, intended to be a money-making venture. (Photo below: Kohn, left, chats with Donziger in the Philadelphia law offices.)

And here’s the House lobbyist registration form from 2008, in which über-lobbyist Ben Barnes signs his firm up to lobby for Kohn, Swift and Graft on issues related to Ecuador and the environment. Which would be…

The campaign against Chevron rests on a foundation of falsehoods, misrepresentation and emotional appeals.

But when you have the Ecuadorian government, self-styled documentarians, big-time lobbyists, not to mention Sting’s wife Trudie, all on your side, who needs the facts?

More on the film and the alliance against a U.S.-based energy company soon.

* The SilverDocs prizes were announced today. “Crude” did not win any awards.

Disclosure: I recently traveled to Ecuador on Chevron’s dime to get a first-hand view of the territory over which the lawsuit makes numerous claims. Chevron is a member of the NAM. But I’ve been posting on this lawsuit since September 2008.

The Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady cites recently captured documents from Colombia’s FARC guerillas  to demonstrate what was already clear to any dispassionate observer of South American politics: Ecuador’s president, Rafael Correa, is no friend of the United States — or of freedom, for that matter. From “The FARC’s Ecuadorean Friends“:

Previously undisclosed documents, fruits of the Colombian military’s raid on a Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (a.k.a. FARC) camp in Ecuador in 2008, came into my hands last week.

The FARC’s second in command, Raúl Reyes, was killed in that raid. But he left behind laptop computers containing correspondence detailing a cozy relationship not only with Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez but also — the fresh documents reveal — with the government of Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa.

Someone should tell the White House. Ten days ago, President Obama called Mr. Correa to, according to a spokesman, “congratulate him on his recent re-election.” Mr. Obama also wanted to “express his desire to deepen our bilateral relationship and to maintain an ongoing dialogue that can ensure a productive relationship based on mutual respect.”

Mr. Correa is anything but respectful of U.S. interests in the region. He’s more like Fidel Castro — albeit with a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois. Under his rule, liberty has been evaporating faster than you can say bolivariano. Now the Reyes letters provide strong evidence that he has been actively supporting the Marxist FARC guerrillas, who see the U.S. as a major enemy.

For some reason, Correa’s radicalism has escaped the same sort of media scrutiny in the United States that Chavez and to a lesser extent Bolivia’s Evo Morales have received. But like the other two, he’s debased the rule of law and governs an an explicitly anti-American leader.

Ecuador’s policies have flown in the face of the mutually beneficial trade relationships that the United States seeks to engage in. Major U.S. business groups, including the National Association of Manufacturers, recently wrote U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk highlighting the country’s growing disrespect for the law and asking for a review of Ecuador’s continued eligibility for U.S. trade preferences under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA).

From the letter, which was signed by the NAM, Business Roundtable, Emergency Committee for American Trade, National Foreign Trade Council, United States Council for International Business, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:

While both Peru and Colombia have successfully used this program to promote economic diversification and new opportunities, while also strengthening their own legal systems and respect for the rule of law, the same cannot be said of Ecuador.

In particular, there are serious concerns within the U.S. business community about breaches of the basic rule of law that are occurring in Ecuador, contrary to the basic eligibility requirements of section 203(c). As found by the State Department in its annual human rights report on Ecuador released in February 2009, there are concerns with “corruption and the denial of due process within [Ecuador’s] judicial system.” U.S. businesses have also continued to see Ecuador’s repudiation of its legal obligations to U.S. investors and a politicization of the judicial system.

Given these basic gaps in the rule of law, we believe that the automatic renewal of Andean preferences for Ecuador would send the wrong message to other developing countries in the hemisphere and throughout the world that have worked to meet the basic eligibility criteria to qualify for U.S. trade preferences. We note that Bolivia has already lost its ATPA benefits as a result of its failure to meet the ATPA eligibility criteria and that Bolivia’s actions continue to worsen.

O’Grady notes that Colombia’s President Uribe visits Washington next week. Indeed, Colombia has built on APTA to broaden and strengthen its economy and expand democratic liberties in the country. If Congress is serious about expanding U.S. exports, creating more jobs in the U.S. export sector, and supporting a democratic ally in a troubled region, it would immediately pass the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It’s that clear.

The wall poster of Cuban murderer Che Guevera is on the side of a building on the major route from downtown Quito to the international airport. I shot it during a recent trip to Ecuador as a guest of Chevron, a U.S. company being attacked by a coalition of U.S. trial lawyers, environmental activists and political forces in Ecuador.

From Mother Jones, a reasonable assessment of President Obama’s speech Monday to the American Medical Association and his seriousness in agreeing (vaguely) with legal reform to help curb health care costs, “Doctors Boo Obama“:

Hillary Clinton tried this same anti-lawsuit gambit back in the early 1990s and we all know how well that worked out.  Obama’s situation is probably even more hopeless because he’s making promises that the AMA must know he can’t keep. Here’s why: As a constitutional law professor, Obama knows well that most of the legal measures doctors support to reduce “defensive medicine,” including the much vaunted “health court” proposals, are fundamentally unconstitutional. They tend to violate people’s Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial, among other things. Moreover, with Democrats running the House and Senate, restrictions on medical malpractice lawsuits are most likely dead on arrival.

It’s not just trial lawyer money that will doom the effort. Trial lawyers don’t have nearly as much money as doctors and insurance companies, for one thing. But also, there are some powerful lawyers in Congress who will put up a big fight on this one on principle. Among them: Republican senator and onetime trial lawyer Lindsey Graham from South Carolina, who voted against malpractice reform bills in 2003 and 2004. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), another former trial lawyer, has also been a reliable opponent of lawsuit restrictions. Obama’s own vice president might pose the biggest obstacle to any attempt to limit malpractice suits. Joe Biden was a trial lawyer himself (as is his brother and son, Beau), and the biggest donors during his political career have been fellow plaintiff attorneys. Biden has never once supported a tort reform bill in Congress; it seems unlikely he would start supporting such proposals now.

Don’t underestimate trial lawyer influence; they’re a core constituency.

From the State Bar of Wisconsin:

As with the Assembly, among the budget changes adopted by the Senate were amendments completely removing provisions that would have modified rules governing contributory negligence and joint and several liability, thereby retaining current law. However, the Senate – like the Assembly — kept budget provisions allowing the stacking of auto insurance policies and requiring increased coverage minimums. In addition, the Senate added a controversial provision requiring drivers in Wisconsin to purchase auto liability insurance.

Governor Jim Doyle had used the budget to propose the return to a “deep pockets” approach toward liability, encouraging the filing of more lawsuits based on the thinnest of speculative bases. It was a clear message to businesses to stay out of Wisconsin, which the lawmakers seemed to have realized.

Still a conference committee to go, though.

For more, see this piece by James Haney of Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.

We’ve recently highlighted a new bill being pushed through the House, H.R. 2868, the Chemical Facility Antiterrorism Act, that promises to make U.S. production and storage of chemicals more expensive and burdensome. The chemical industry is one of strong foundations of the U.S. economy. As Marty Durbin of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) described it at Tuesday’s hearing on the legislation by the House Committee on Homeland Security:

The business of chemistry is an important part of our nation’s economy and employs more than 850,000 Americans, and produces 19 percent of the world’s chemicals. ACC member companies manufacture essential products critical to everyday items that keep the economy moving and are essential to developing the greener, cleaner, more competitive economy the nation seeks. More than 96 percent of all manufactured goods are directly touched by the business of chemistry. Our members provide the chemistry that is used to produce life saving medications and medical devices, body armor used by our military and law enforcement officers, light weight components for vehicles, energy saving insulation and windows, silicon for solar panels, wind turbine blades and so much more. 

Yet the legislation includes many provisions that will simply make it harder to do business in the United States with no real benefit in terms of safety or anti-terrorism security. Sure, environmental groups will appreciate the additional power to sue companies in tandem with federal regulatory enforcement, but that “citizen suit” provision only serves the activists, not security.

This legislation is also a major item of interest and concern in farm country, since modern agriculture involves fertilizers and other chemicals, to say the least. The Kansas Meadowlark blog has been covering the rural angle, with attention to the growing-power-of-government angle, too. From “Congress could give government bureaucrats more control of farms and industry:

The federal government continues its push for unprecedented control of more aspects of our lives while there is little public discussion of the changes and consequences.  The mainstream press is mostly ignoring changes being discussed now in Congress regarding chemical security, which could have a huge impact on most industries, including ones important to Kansas.

Shouldn’t Kansans speak up about more federal controls that may affect Kansas farms?  Don’t Kansas farmers know more about farming than federal bureaucrats?

The committee mark-up starts at 10 a.m. Go here for the streaming video.

It’s the fun and easy-to-do economic story of the month: Hard economic times prove boon to low-price bus services. Granted, easier to do for reporters in the Boston to Washington corridor than, say, South Dakota, but it IS a good story and since one of them features the NAM’s legal ally Victor Schwartz…

Bloomberg, “Bus Lines Bloom as Professionals Travel to New York on Cheap“:

 June 13 (Bloomberg) — Washington lawyer Victor Schwartz bills his clients, which include firms such as New York-based Morgan Stanley, $700 an hour for his services. So in these tough economic times, he tries to present them with a smaller transportation bill when he comes up to see them.

“It’s $21 for the bus, versus $300 for the plane,” says Schwartz, 68, a partner at Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP. “They get the same lawyer, the suit is pressed just as well, and I’m ready to roll.”

Noreen Malone, Slate, “Get on the Bus — What’s the best discount line? Fung Wah? Bolt? Mega? Or good old Greyhound?“

 People who take Amtrak or prefer flying might think one cheapo coach is the same as the next, but these are the same undiscriminating individuals who think a Bud Light is interchangeable with a Busch Light. Not only are these train or plane types spending more money than is strictly necessary—a sure sign of moral inferiority—but they have failed to learn the supremely useful, difficult-to-master art of distinguishing among the baser things in life. Herewith, a snob’s guide to bus travel.

Noreen is sold by the wi-fi.  

• Wall Street Journal, “Planes, Trains … and Buses?”
• The Week, “Rediscovering bus travel.”

Why in the world would the Washington Post participate in the rehabilitation of John Edwards? From “Hope From A Humbler Perch,” with the sub-hed, “Post-Scandal, John Edwards Finds a Quieter Purpose”:

[As] he spends his days in his family’s mansion on the outskirts of Chapel Hill, N.C., Edwards can’t help but fret about how Washington and the country are getting on in his absence. He worries about the concessions that may be made on health-care reform, which he was promoting more aggressively than anyone on the presidential campaign trail. He worries about who will speak out for the country’s neediest at a time when most attention is focused on the suddenly imperiled middle class.

Gah. All this on the section front of Style, with a glamor shot of Edwards, and with Edwards setting the terms the Post’s coverage.

In agreeing to his first extended interview since confirming the affair, Edwards refused to talk about Hunter, the baby’s paternity, his wife’s memoir or the campaign investigation. But he spoke expansively over the phone for 90 minutes about his tumultuous decade in politics, which began when, after the death of his teenaged son in a car accident, he left behind a career as a trial lawyer to run for the U.S. Senate in 1998.

Right. In agreeing to his first extended interview, Edwards refused to talk about the news or things that would make him look bad, and the Post readily agreed.

Obviously you can see why Edwards would welcome this positive coverage. His rehabilitation comes just in time for a surprise speaking appearance at the American Association for Justice’s annual convention in San Francisco! Maybe that’s the real reason the trial lawyers moved the convention from Southern California.

UPDATE (9 a.m.): Mickey Kaus declares the article, “John Edwards Father’s Day Special!” And asks, “Who was the editor who decided to call this piece ‘Hope from a Humbler Perch’ instead of, say, ‘In Defeat, Edwards Left String of Broken Promises’?

We wonder if Edwards isn’t angling for a piece of this litigation business, “Groups Say ‘New’ Carmakers Should Pay for Past Injuries.”