-i- TO THE SUBROGATE PRESIDENT OF THE ... - Chevron

has “the most ridiculous legal culture,” “encrusted” with “[h]undreds of years of . . .
judicial weakness and corruption.” 552
The plaintiffs’ “pressure tactics” clearly worked as planned. From the Court’s
about-face on the question of relinquishing the judicial inspections and cancelling the
settling experts; to the Court’s agreement to appoint Mr. Cabrera as the global expert
(which Mr. Donziger admitted the judge “never would have done had we not really
pushed him” 553 ); to the Court’s order of August 2, 2010, accepting plaintiffs’ lawyers’
proposal for a new round of reports following the exposure of Mr. Cabrera as a fraud,
the Court has consistently sided with plaintiffs while ignoring my client’s key arguments.
Those prejudicial and biased decisions were the product of intense political and external
pressure orchestrated by the plaintiffs, and they have irredeemably tainted the entirety
of these proceedings. All of this constitutes a gross violation of my client’s right to due
process and a fair trial.
3.8 This Case Has Been Prejudicially Influenced by the Government of
Ecuador
The denials of due process that have marred this trial also result from intense
political pressure brought to bear on this Court to expedite a ruling in favor of the
plaintiffs. That political pressure is part of an apparent quid pro quo in which the
Government is, in various respects, supporting the plaintiffs’ suit against Chevron in
return for the plaintiffs’ agreement not to sue the Government. 554 This is because the
(continued…)
551 Transcript of Crude Outtakes, attached as Annex 2 to Chevron’s Motion filed Sept. 16, 2010 at
4:35 p.m. (CRS 053-02-01). Likewise, plaintiffs had no respect for the evidentiary process before
Ecuadorian courts, noting that "[i]t's not like a US court in that respect, things are really loose here. . . .
Rules of evidence are, like, not even close to what they are in the US. People can just say whatever the
'f' they want". Transcript of Crude Outtakes, attached as Annex 3 to Chevron’s Second Supplemental
Motion for Terminating Sanctions, filed Dec. 8, 2010 at 4:21 p.m. (CRS 042-14-05).
552 Transcript of Crude Outtakes, attached as Annex 1 to Chevron’s Motion filed Sept. 16, 2010
at 4:35 p.m. (CRS 187-01-01).
553 Transcript of Crude Outtakes, attached as Annex 1 to Chevron’s Motion filed Sept. 16, 2010 at
4:35 p.m. (CRS 361-11-01).
554 The quid pro quo arrangement between the plaintiffs and the State apparently began well
before the Lago Agrio complaint was filed. In 1997, the plaintiffs’ then-lead attorney, Cristóbal Bonifaz,
publicly stated that “the plaintiffs and their attorneys have agreed—in legal documents—to not sue the
State should it be found that the State was jointly responsible with Texaco for causing environmental
damage,” Texaco—The Time Has Come, Hoy (Apr. 14, 1997), attached as Annex H to Chevron's Second
Rebuttal to the Barros Report, filed Jan. 29, 2010 at 3:30 p.m., Record at 166932-33; Petroecuador will
not be harmed, El Comercio (Apr. 22, 1997), attached as Annex I to Chevron's Second Rebuttal to the
Barros Report, filed Jan. 29, 2010 at 3:30 p.m., Record at 166935 (noting that the plaintiffs had provided
“notarized documents” to the Ecuadorian Attorney General waiving any claims against the State). Less
than a year after the Lago Agrio complaint was filed, the Government accepted an offer of free legal
services from Mr. Bonifaz (and Terry Collingsworth) to resist Chevron’s assertion of its rights under the
settlement in related litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. See Letter
CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD
- 126 -