Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady penned an editorial about the current state Chevron’s fight against the corrupt judgment brought against it by an Ecuadorian court in February of last year. Chevron has been waging a battle to prove that the judgment in the case is the result of corruption and the evidence continues to mount.

On May 4^th Chevron asked the U.S. federal court in Miami for records of several bank accounts with Banco Pichincha in Ecuador. It’s believed that these Bank records will show that one of the court-appointed independent experts, a geological engineer, was bribed by the plaintiff’s lawyers:

One of Chevron’s allegations is that geological engineer Richard Cabrera, the court-appointed “independent” expert who would assess the rain forest damage, was working secretly for the plaintiffs lawyers. It cites outtakes from the ADC film “Crude” that show the two sides meeting together before his appointment and documents secured through discovery in U.S. courts to support that allegation. Chevron also claims that documents prepared by the plaintiff’s lawyers became part of the Ecuadorean court’s judgment, which it says casts doubt on the court’s neutrality.

Chevron has continued to go to court in the U.S., now more than 20 times to show that fraud was committed in the case and in nine instances U.S. courts have been critical of the Ecuadorean Court proceedings. From the WSJ:

In one instance, addressing Chevron’s claim that the plaintiffs’ representatives “ghostwrote” Mr. Cabrera’s report, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina observed that “While this court is unfamiliar with the practices of the Ecuadorian judicial system, the court must believe that the concept of fraud is universal, and that what has blatantly occurred in this matter would in fact be considered fraud by any court. If such conduct does not amount to fraud in a particular country, then that country has larger problems than an oil spill.”

Chevron is continuing to move forward with their RICO suit in the NY Southern District Court against Amazon Defense Coalition, one of the nongovernmental organizations advocating for the plaintiffs in the suit. And it’s becoming more and more clear that this judgment was arrived at with fraud and corruption.

This week House Education and Workforce Chairman John Kline, along with 35 of his colleagues, filed an amicus brief with the DC Circuit Court in support of the NAM suit against the NLRB regarding the posting requirement. The NAM suit contends the NLRB does not have the authority under the National Labor Relations Act to compel employers subject to the Act to post a notice in their workplace. In addition, the NAM questions the Board’s ability to create a new unfair labor practice without Congressional action.

The amicus brief filed by Chairman Kline and other Members of Congress makes a compelling argument that “the NLRA and its legislative history demonstrate that the Board exceeded its authority, and acted contrary to the NLRA, by creating a notice obligation imposed on employers that are not parties to pending unfair labor practice or representation proceedings.” The brief gives the Court a well constructed history of the National Labor Relations Act and other similar statutes enacted by Congress to illustrate its intent – which clearly demonstrates Congress did not intend for the NLRB to have the authority to require all employers to post notices. The absence of any express authority for the NLRB to issue notice requirements is an important point, particularly given other labor-related acts included such authority.

Henry David Thoreau once said, “In human intercourse the tragedy begins, not when there is misunderstanding about words, but when silence is not understood.” It seems Thoreau’s observation also applies to government agencies that misinterpret silence and use it as justification for interjecting itself into areas in which it has no authority.

Reply briefs are due on November 22^nd and the Court has scheduled oral argument for December 19^th. A decision from the Court is expected prior to the January 31 effective date of the rule.