Steven Donziger is clearly the “star” in the documentary-style film, “Crude,” about the $113 billion shakedown lawsuit against Chevron claiming environmental damage in Ecuador. The New York trial lawyer is profane, arrogant, and in numerous outtakes obtained by Chevron, repeatedly reveals the corruption at the heart of the litigation. Donziger’s admissions against interest have done so much damage to the suit that he has reduced his public role with the plaintiffs’ team, which has turned to the prestigious law firm and lobbying outfit, Patton Boggs, to salvage its case.

But there’s another great performance in the film, a cameo appearance that bears close attention. In segments never shown to the public, Alexis Mera, Ecuador’s Secretary of Judicial Affairs and a legal advisor to President Rafael Correa, strategizes with the plaintiffs’ legal team about how best to apply political pressure to a public prosecutor and even revoke an Ecuadorian law so the lawsuit gains a modicum of legitimacy.

Mera’s comments — and other revelations from the outtakes — demonstrate that the government of Ecuador has been actively aiding the U.S. trial lawyers’ plans to extort billions out of a U.S.-based company. The scheming by top government officials, as well as comments by Correa himself, reinforce the Ecuadorian government’s anti-American policies and contempt for international law.

On March 29, 2007, Mera met in his offices with the legal team of the so-called Lago Agrio plaintiffs, including Pablo Fajardo, Alejandro Ponce Villacis, and Julio Prietro, as well as the activist and public face of the anti-Chevron awsuit, Luis Yanza. In one outtake, Mera says, “The problem, I see, is what to do and how we can help each other.”

The video, available here, continues with Mera and the team discussing the Public Prosecutor’s office, which the plaintiffs’ lawyers are demanding should bring criminal charges against two Chevron attorneys in Ecuador. The plaintiffs want the charges brought to introduce personal risk into the portfolio of pressure tactics; Chevron might be more inclined to settle if its employees could be sent to jail.

The top justice official advises, “You have to take the people from the Orient [province] there, hold a demonstration. The people — that’s how this country works. Close Republica Street.”

Then there’s this, Mera’s clear recognition that his discussions with the plaintiffs are improper.

Mera and the plaintiffs’ team are talking about a “nullity suit” to revoke the Ecuadorian government’s previous sign-off on Texaco’s clean-up of its Ecuadorian oil operations. (Chevron acquired Texaco in 2001.) As they’re discussing these legal issues, Mera seems to realize the camera is on.

MERA: Why are they filming? Why are they filming? That seems to me to be completely improper. Forgive me for the way I’m saying it.

Camerman: Let’s see. Forgive me. Excuse me. (Cut off)

When you’re a government official scheming with a private party in a lawsuit, you tend not to want to be caught on camera. (continue reading…)

Ever since Shopfloor began blogging about the Ecuador-based litigation against Chevron in May 2007, we’ve argued that the lawsuit was a blatant shakedown by U.S. trial lawyers. In claiming Chevron owed $27 billlion — and then $113 billion — for environmental damage from Texaco’s oil drilling in the Amazon, the U.S. attorneys and Lago Agrio plaintiffs in Ecuador were really trying to pressure Chevron (which had bought Texaco in 2001) into a huge settlement. The bigger the settlement, the bigger the check for the U.S. lawyers being paid on a contingency basis.

Their preposterous claims relied not on facts or the law, but rather a multifaceted and ugly public relations and political campaign. At work was a combine of U.S. trial lawyers, environmental activists and anti-corporate bloggers, magnifying their accusations through a sympathetic mainstream media. The shakedown campaign recorded several PR victories, including a  “60 Minutes” hit piece against Chevron and most notably a full-length, overwhelmingly pro-plaintiffs’ film, “Crude,” by well-known documentarian Joe Berlinger.

In Ecuador the plaintiffs’ team manipulated the court system and made common cause with the leftist, anti-American regime of President Rafael Correa. (More on that in a later post.)

The response to our arguments? Chevron lies, America exploits the Third World, Ecuadorians are dying and you’re an inhumane corporate shill.

Now, thanks to outtakes from “Crude” that Chevron successfully obtained through the U.S. courts,  the trial lawyer/activist/media combine can no longer pretend any sort of moral high ground. Footage reveals Steven Donziger, the lead U.S. attorney who has directed the anti-Chevron campaign in Ecuador and the United States,  to be a cynical, arrogant and foul-mouthed commentator. And, unfortunately for the plaintiffs’ case, Donziger is remarkably frank.

Take for example, this video below. At a June 6, 2007, meeting Donziger outlined the plaintiffs’ strategy to intimidate the Ecuadorian courts through the show of brute force. [Warning: Language]

Excerpts:

(continue reading…)

Since we last wrote about the $113 billion shakedown lawsuit against Chevron for environmental damage in Ecuador’s Amazon, momentous developments have occurred. Via court filings and media reports we have learned:

• Kohn, Swift and Graf, the Philadelphia law firm that bankrolled the lawsuit has pulled the plug on its financial support, largely because of the hubris and unethical behavior of the lead lawyer orchestrating the anti-Chevron campaign, Steven Donziger.
• Donziger has declared he is lowering his profile in the case, and Patton Boggs has signed on to represent the Ecuadorian plaintiffs, apparently believing it can patch up a sinking ship. (Wall Street Journal, “Chevron Forces Legal Change.”)
• Some of the Ecuadorian plaintiffs may be fictional. No, not just their claims, their actual existence may be an invention.

From Chevron.com, “Forensic Expert Discovers Elaborate Forgery of Plaintiffs’ Signatures Authorizing 2003 Complaint Against Chevron in Ecuador“:

SAN RAMON, Calif., Dec 20, 2010 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) today submitted expert analysis from a leading forensic specialist demonstrating that many of the signatures on the document purporting to authorize the lawsuit against Chevron in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, were forged. According to Chevron’s filing, this newly uncovered evidence of forgery and fraud makes clear that the lawsuit has been tainted with corruption from the very beginning and must be terminated….

“The Ecuadorian authorities cannot continue to ignore the mounting evidence of fraud in the Lago Agrio litigation without violating their duties under the Ecuadorian constitution and international law,” stated R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron vice president and general counsel. “We intend to seek full redress against the harm that has been done in the name of the Ecuadorian plaintiffs and to hold accountable all of those who have knowingly participated in this unlawful scheme.”

The forensic expert’s analysis and Chevron’s motion to nullify the Ecuadorian lawsuit are available at: http://scr.bi/faTsoS.

In 'Crude' movie, Joe Kohn (left) looks askance at Steven Donziger

Daniel Fisher at Forbes.com has done the best job of reporting on recent developments gleaned from court documents, including the Philadelphia law firm’s renunciation of Donziger. Joe Kohn, the partner most associated with the suit, wrote the plaintiffs in August about the manipulation of a supposedly independent court expert’s report claiming $27 billion in damages. As Fisher reports in his column, “Chevron Ecuador Case A Shambles, Former Backer Says,” Kohn fumed:

We now find out that there may have been extensive, systematic contacts, orchestrated by Donziger, and with your participation and agreement, which have threatened the entire case. And, of course, we find out about it in part as a result of the utter stupidity, arrogance and conceit of inviting a film to be made documenting this improper conduct.

Hubris, in other words.
(continue reading…)

U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan has issued his full opinion explaining his earlier order that Steven Donziger, the U.S. trial lawyer, answer the questions of Chevron’s attorneys about his orchestration of the $113 billion lawsuit against the company in Ecuador.

Released Friday in the Southern District of New York, Kaplan’s order denies Donziger’s claims that, among other arguments, being forced to submit to depositions would violate attorney-client privilege. But Donziger isn’t admitted to practice law in Ecuador where the litigation is taking place, and he does not play a counsel’s role. Judge Kaplan refers to Donziger as the “field general” of the anti-Chevron campaign.

Donziger is at the center of this controversy. While he is a member of the New York Bar and years ago worked on a predecessor to the Lago Agrio lawsuit that was brought in this Court, he is not qualified to practice law in Ecuador. He does not serve as litigation counsel there. He nevertheless has been extremely active in support of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs.

The evidence before this Court shows that Donziger has attempted to (1) intimidate the Ecuadorian judges, (2) obtain political support for the Ecuadorian lawsuit, (3) persuade the GOE to promote the interests of the Lago Agrio plaintiffs, (4) obtain favorable media coverage, (5) solicit the support of celebrities (including Daryl Hannah and Trudie Styler) and environmental groups, (6) procure and package “expert” testimony for use in Ecuador, (7) pressure Chevron to pay a large settlement, and (8) obtain a book deal. Among his efforts was his persuasion of Joseph Berlinger, a documentary film maker, to make a documentary about the Lago Agrio litigation from the plaintiffs’ point of view. That film, entitled Crude, purports to tell the story of the Lago Agrio litigation. It is no exaggeration to say that Donziger is the star of the film, much of which focuses on his words and activities.

And it’s the outtakes of “Crude” that document so much of the wrongdoing, in the process destroying any vestige of legal or moral standing the plaintiffs could claim in their suit against Chevron. (continue reading…)

Thanks to a federal judge’s ruling, a New York attorney is going to have to answer questions about his scheming to manipulate the courts in Ecuador for advantate in the lawsuit claiming Chevron polluted the Amazon. The order by U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan delivers another hard blow against the multi-billion-dollar litigation targeting the company.

Thankfully, the U.S. judicial system is revealing the truth that the trial lawyers and wealth-redistributing activists sought to obscure and that the media failed to report. Aggressive lawyering by Chevron is proving more effective than the aggressive propagandizing by those trying to shake down the company.

In his Oct. 20 order, Judge Kaplan of the Southern District of New York ruled that Steven Donziger’s activities in Ecuador are not protected by attorney-client privilege. Donziger must respond to request for discovery from Chevron in the civil lawsuit (from the group known as the “Lago Agrio plaintiffs) and two Ecuadorian lawyers for Chevron who are being criminally prosecuted, Richard Reis and Rodrigo Perez.

Steven Donziger (left) and Joe Berlinger in happier, more PR propitious times -- the AFI Silver Docs festival.

Kaplan writes that the outtakes from the documentary-style movie “Crude” provide ample evidence of the Donziger’s efforts to manipulate the supposedly independent court-appointed expert’s report on environmental damages. The fact Donziger is a counsel in some proceedings is also not relevant here. From the order:

As an initial matter, Donziger is not representing the Lago Agrio plaintiffs before the Ecuadorian courts. He is not admitted to practice there. While he is a member of the New York Bar and presumably benefits from his legal training, there is abundant evidence in the outtakes that Donziger’s role in connection with events in Ecuador has been at least primarily in capacities other than that of an attorney. His principal functions have included lobbying, media and press relations, and politics. He has acknowledged in the outtakes that the purported civil litigation in Ecuador “is not a legal case. It’s a political battle” in which “[w]e need to get the politics in order in a country that doesn’t favor people from the rainforest.” On another occasion he said:

“Hold on a second, you know, this is Ecuador, okay. You can say whatever you want. In the end of the day, there’s a thousand people around the courthouse. You’re going to get what you want. * * * At the end of the day, this is all for the Court, just a bunch of smoke and mirrors . . .”

Donziger’s role at least in major respects is that of a political operative, not a lawyer. Moreover, Donziger admitted in March 2007 that he had not done legal work in two years. While this comment perhaps was offered in a somewhat jocular vein, there is substantial truth to it.

A prompt response is also warranted. The judge expresses serious concern about the fate of the two Chevron attorneys in Ecuador, who now face a preliminary criminal hearing on Nov. 10. In addition, the Lago Agrio plaintiffs are pushing to have a civil judgment entered against Chevron as soon as possible.

Several observations… (continue reading…)

With U.S. District Court Judge Lewis Kaplan ordering the public release of outtakes from the anti-Chevron film “Crude,” blogger Bob McCarty wonders where the national news coverage is.

After all, if employees of a huge oil company had been in league with a right-wing director to produce a “documentary” to help fend off a multi-billion dollar lawsuit in a third-world court, that would be huge news. But when “Crude” director Joe Berlinger and the U.S.-Ecuador legal team led by U.S. trial lawyer Steven Donziger try but fail to suppress damning outtakes, footage that blows up their litigation shakedown, nothing.

McCarty concludes in his Big Government post, “Biased Media Outlets Ignore ‘CRUDE’ Outtakes,” with two messages:

To the mainstream media, I say, “Your bias is showing!”

To Mr. Berlinger, I say, “I hope you remember how much emphasis you placed on your First Amendment freedom of expression when you were vehemently opposing the release of outtakes from your film [To refresh your memory, click here or here]. When people start to air the outtakes from your film in YouTube videos, remember that those outtakes are now part of the public record and, therefore, protected by federal law.”

The principle of fair use can be invoked, as well.

As a former slothful journalist ourself, we tend to think laziness and passivity are just as common explanations as bias for the media failing to report the news. But in this case, no excuses. It’s a big story!

Earlier Shopfloor.org post on the subject, “‘Crude’ Outtakes Made Public; What an Opportunity for ’60 Minutes’.”

From Daniel Fisher’s “Full Disclosure” blog at Forbes.com, “Judge To “Crude” Filmmaker: You’re Part Of The Story“:

Judge Lewis Kaplan’s Sept. 7 order requiring filmmaker Joe Berlinger to undergo a deposition over what he saw and heard while filming the documentary “Crude” is more than a refutation of Berlinger’s argument of journalistic privilege. It’s a warning to future plaintiff lawyers not to let sympathetic filmmakers follow them around, camera in hand. And it offers a glimpse into how Kaplan or another federal judge might view any attempt by attorney Steven Donziger to enforce any judgement he obtains in Ecuador. Kaplan drops enough hints about his concerns over unethical and possibly illegal goings-on down in Ecuador that Donziger’s team should be on notice they will face fierce scrutiny if they ask a U.S. court to enforce their judgment here.

Fisher’s blog quotes a federal judge’s separate ruling in New Mexico, which we also cited in a post at the Manhattan Institute’s legal blog, Point of Law, “Damning revelations in outtakes from anti-Chevron movie, ‘Crude’.” District Judge Lorenzo F. Garcia summarized the revelations originally concealed in Berlinger’s footage:

The release of many hours of the outtakes has sent shockwaves through the nation’s legal communities, primarily because the footage shows, with unflattering frankness, inappropriate, unethical and perhaps illegal conduct. In the film itself, Attorney Donziger brags of his ex parte contacts with the Ecuadorian judge, confessing that he would never be allowed to do such things in the United States, but, in Ecuador, everyone plays dirty. The outtakes support, in large part, Applicants’ contentions of corruption in the judicial process. They show how nongovernmental organizations, labor organizations, community groups and others were organized by the Lago Agrio attorneys to place pressure on the new Ecuadorian government to push for a specific outcome in the litigation, and how the Ecuadorian government intervened in ongoing litigation.

Shopfloor.org, the blog of the National Association of Manufacturers, makes a brief appearance, as well. Judge Kaplan recognized that  bloggers and members of the public know how to download public documents from the federal courts’ electronic filing system.

A follow-up to the Shopfloor post immediately below, “Judge’s Ruling on ‘Crude’ Shows that the Truth is in the Outtakes“…

In ruling that movie director Joe Berlinger had to submit to depositions so Chevron can fully defend itself in court, Judge Lewis Kaplan also rejected Berlinger’s attempt to punish the company because it had suppposedly violated an order from the Second Circuit when it used the film outtakes for public relations purposes.

Berlinger’s claim rested in part on the assertion that Chevron supplied one of its court filings to Shopfloor, the blog of the National Association of Manufacturers, and that I wrote about the document in this Aug. 3 post. See, PR! But the assertion wasn’t true — as we explained here — and even it were, so what? There’s this thing called the First Amendment.

Judge Kaplan did not treat Berlinger’s claims kindly. In his 28-page ruling, starting on page 24, he writes:

As an initial matter, there is irony in Berlinger’s application. On the one hand, he has resisted production of his outtakes, and resists the discovery that Chevron now seeks, by invoking the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment. Yet he seeks to prevent Chevron from publicly discussing litigation taking place on the public record. The First Amendment, however, protects Chevron’s right to speak about this litigation at least to the same, and probably to a greater, extent than it protects Berlinger’s desire to avoid giving evidence in court like any other citizen. But Berlinger’s cross-motion fails for reasons having nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Alas, First Amendment advocates and media mavens like Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press appeared untroubled by Berlinger’s disregard for constitutionally protected liberties.

Judge Kaplan then provides a quick lesson on how federal courts use electronic filings, which make the documents public records, accessible by people like bloggers: (continue reading…)

A federal judge today dealt another setback to the trial lawyer/activist/media combine trying to shake down Chevron for alleged environmental damage in Ecuador. Judge Lewis Kaplan of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, ruled that film director Joe Berlinger must provide additional evidence about the shooting of his documentary-style film, “Crude.” David Itzkoff of the Arts Beat blog at The New York Times covers the ruling, “Filmmaker Ordered to Give Testimony in Chevron Case“:

A federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Tuesday that a documentary filmmaker must submit to depositions in a case involving Chevron, writing in a strongly worded opinion that the oil company’s original request to see the filmmaker’s raw documentary footage was “no fishing expedition.”

In July a federal appeals court ruled that the filmmaker, Joe Berlinger, must turn over a portion of unused footage from his documentary “Crude” to Chevron, which said that the footage may be useful in its fight against a lawsuit in Ecuador.

Judge Kaplan’s 28-page ruling is here. He makes three points:

Berlinger’s suppression of the “Crude” outtakes tells you that despite all his claims about trying to make a fair movie, he was perfectly happy with being manipulated by Donziger and in turn with manipulating the audience, just as long as he had a compelling storyline. Didn’t matter if it was true or not.

But the truth matters when a U.S.-based business employing thousands of people is subject to a trial lawyer shakedown — $27 billion claimed in damages! —  and some of its employees are facing criminal charges in Ecuador.

In a Financial Post blog entry, “Turning the tables,” Silvia Santacruz, an Ecuadorian economist based in New York and the publisher of Ecuador Mining News.com, provides knowledgeable perspective about the trial lawyer/activist litigation against Chevron.  She also critiques the one-sided and misleading documentary-style film about the dispute, “Crude.” Companies usually try to buy peace in circumstances like these, Santacruz observes, funding NGOs in order to avoid a PR beating to their market capitalization. But…

[One] American firm — Chevron — is not only fearless of green campaigners’ tactics, it is giving them a taste of their own medicine. In the process, it may also highlight the problems with government ownership of natural resources, including eco-disasters, that environmentalist activists blithely ignore.

In this case, the government-owned operator is Petroecuador, which has continued to develop the Amazon region’s oil resources after ending its consortium with Texaco — later bought by Chevron — in 1992.  Santacruz, who recently traveled to the Lago Agrio region in Ecuador, reports the reality ignored by the activists, U.S. trial lawyers and, too often, the U.S. media who report on the litigation.

During my visit to the oil spills, I found some reforested sites, others being cleaned up, and just a few crude spills collected in pools. At one site, known as the “Presidential Well” after Correa gave a press conference there, I noticed that the pipelines were warm. Petroleum was being pumped, and the spill was recent — I threw a stone that sank instantly. I had no doubt: Petroecuador is currently operating there. So, how can Correa and environmentalists accuse Texaco of a “pollution 30 times greater than the Exxon-Mobil,” when the company left 20 years ago?

Recent data reveal that state-owned Petroecuador has caused 1,415 crude spills between 2000 and 2008, an average of one incident every other day. But environmentalists in Ecuador do not care about Petroecuador and continue to point fingers at Chevron instead. Astonishingly, my country’s ecological disaster does not make the green campaigners blink. State-owned companies’ pollution is simply not on their radar screen. They seem to care not so much about my country’s indigenous people as they do about Chevron’s pockets.

So that was actually Petroecuador oil that the actress Daryl Hannah stuck her hand into for all those anti-Chevron publicity photos. She seemed not to care so much about the country’s indigenous people as she did about her own self-promotion, but that’s Hollywood environmentalism for you.

Santacruz is an Ecuadorian, an economist, and a person with first-hand knowledge of the energy industry in developing countries. Her insights merit serious attention. Instead, we predict, the Amazon Defense Coalition will attack her motives and dream up some sort of nefarious connection. That’s SOP for the activists, who seem to care not so much about truth as they do about Chevron’s pockets.