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

With the judicial inspections prematurely terminated, this Court, after a
conspiracy by the plaintiffs that included intimidation and extortion of former Judge
Yánez, appointed Richard Cabrera to determine both the existence and cause of any
contamination throughout the former concession area. Mr. Cabrera’s work lacked
scientific validity. Despite the fact that it took the parties’ judicial-inspection experts
thirty months to perform testing at just forty-five sites during the judicial inspections,
Mr. Cabrera purported to assess environmental conditions throughout the entirety of the
former concession area in just nine months, spending only a few weeks in the field and
visiting less than fifteen percent of wells and production stations in the former
concession area. Although Mr. Cabrera purported to rely upon the testing from the
truncated judicial inspections, he was not empowered to act as a settling-expert at this
stage and, in all events, did not respond to Chevron’s objections to the plaintiffs’
sampling and testing methodologies or resolve the divergent conclusions that the
parties’ judicial-inspection experts had reached. His testing of environmental conditions
was thus plainly inadequate. And for reasons that are now clear, much of Mr. Cabrera’s
work was performed in secret, without prior notice to Chevron, and in violation of the
principle of disclosure of all evidence, thus preventing my client from meaningfully
defending itself.
Chevron accordingly argued that the expert report contained essential errors,
pointing out the manifest irregularities in Mr. Cabrera’s methodology, the absurdity of
the conclusions in the report submitted in his name, and his failure to produce essential
information about the sources upon which he purportedly relied, the data he collected,
and the team that assisted him. Yet Judge Núñez—who recused himself from the case
after audiovisual evidence surfaced indicating that he had prejudged Chevron’s liability
and was involved in a US$3 million bribery scheme—refused Chevron’s petition by
improperly treating it as a motion for clarification. In addition, Judge Núñez denied
Chevron its right to question Mr. Cabrera in a deposition. Chevron has thus been
denied the opportunity to review, and defend against, the purported basis for the
allegations contained in the report signed by Mr. Cabrera. These decisions still stand
despite Judge Núñez’s manifest bias against Chevron. The result: an unchallengeable
unilateral condemnation prepared by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, paid consultants
and affiliated activists, issued under the signature of a lone expert, containing
unscientific and unsubstantiated conclusions that reflect a patent bias against Chevron.
From the start, the acts of the various judges who have heard this case have
lacked the necessary objectivity, because they were subjected to unfair pressure both
by the plaintiffs and by the Government, which has an interest in the results of the trial,
which has affected the impartiality that they were required to have, as they were urged
to rush to a preordained judgment against my client. Among other things, the use of the
summary verbal procedure, the premature termination of the judicial inspections, and
the failure to appoint experts proposed by Chevron, all demonstrate a desire to railroad
a judgment against my client. With the judicial-inspection process cut short and
Mr. Cabrera’s work revealed as a collusive fraud, this Court, through an unfounded
ruling that lacks procedural value, gave the plaintiffs a third shot to “prove” their case,
with the so-called "legal brief" filed on September 16, 2010 at 5:15 p.m. That order was
aimed at assigning liability to Chevron notwithstanding, or even acknowledging,
CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD
- 9 -