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

distorted presentation of the facts in dispute and to mislead the courts, in order to
harm my client, in the same way as the expert examination of all the fields operated by
the former Consortium, which like the judicial inspections, suffers from the same
defects indicated above. Repackaging or recycling the same evidence does nothing to
remedy plaintiffs’ misconduct and bad faith or the fraud that such misconduct brought
about. In fact, this Court’s decision to authorize the untimely, unnatural legal briefs
(used as a vehicle for the plaintiffs to reintroduce their fraudulent evidence and
attempt to make it legitimate) only made the nullity problems worse and violate even
more the constitutional right to due process to which my client is entitled. After all, the
fraudulent Cabrera Report was intended by the plaintiffs to serve as a substitute for
the 64 judicial inspections that they illegally waived, while those that had already been
performed were tainted by the plaintiffs' misconduct and suffered from defects of
essential error (which included acting with fraud) alleged by my client, the hearing of
which was arbitrarily denied in some cases, and improperly conducted in other cases
without being resolved to date. And then this Court gave plaintiffs a third bite at the
apple. In doing so, it ignored the fact that when previously provided with opportunities
to prove their case, plaintiffs first falsified the reports of their nominated expert, Dr.
Calmbacher, and then improperly worked with the “neutral” expert, Mr. Cabrera, to
craft a fraudulent report intended to lead the administration of justice into error and to
gravely harm Chevron. In light of those deceitful and fraudulent activities, this Court
cannot possibly give any probative validity to plaintiffs’ submission on September 16,
2010, at 5:15 p.m., in which they state their “economic criteria” for the assessment of
environmental damages. In any other system of justice, the plaintiffs would have been
prevented from continuing with the trial and their counsel would have been suspended
from practicing law. They certainly would not have been given the chance to
whitewash their malfeasance, take advantage of their own deceitful actions, and try to
salvage their case in an ad hoc eleventh-hour filing of new (recycled) evidence.
Second, without any investigation conducted in accordance with the legal rules,
which eliminates any doubts regarding the now public and probably criminal acts of
the plaintiffs in producing the fabricated "evidence" of damages alleged in their
complaint and which result solely from the Cabrera Report, it was absolutely improper
for the judge to order a quantification of the damages, or even worse, for him to
consider or give any merit to such quantification when he decides the case. A case
cannot go forward without competent or reliable evidence, both procedurally and in
terms of relevance to the issues in the case, that is not fabricated and does not
contain a distorted portrayal of the facts, and also proves the supposed damages
alleged in the complaint. Ordering the parties to file “legal briefs” on economic criteria
for purposes of reparation of damages without having first determined in a judgment
that such damages exist and that the defendant is liable for them and must be ordered
to redress them was not only an arbitrary decision that undeniably involves a rush to
judgment, but is contrary to reason, logic and law. Therefore, Judge Ordóñez
revealed his opinion in the case prematurely when he issued his order of August 2,
2010, at 9:00 a.m., which effectively constituted an advance opinion, which although it
CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD
- 79 -