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

the fact that because of the acts and influence of the plaintiffs and other judges biased
in their favor, everything done in this trial lacks any credibility and is an utter sham.
In sum, this Court’s refusal to act upon, or even acknowledge, the overwhelming
evidence of the plaintiffs’ fraudulent and deceitful conduct is utterly indefensible. The
baseless and arbitrary order made on August 2, 2010 at 9:00 a.m. reflects the intense
and illegal social and political pressure to award the plaintiffs a large judgment,
heedless of the law or the facts. In order to preserve my client’s right to due process,
this case should have been terminated at once. Instead, the plaintiffs went
unpunished and, in fact, were given yet another chance to attempt to illegally salvage
their case, even though all of the evidence they submitted with regard to the supposed
environmental damages they allege in their complaint was falsified, illegal, and not at
all reliable. This was a gross violation of the most basic constitutional principles of
due process and the most basic principles of procedural law.
3.2 By Ignoring and Whitewashing the Plaintiffs’ Fraud, This Court Has
Exposed Its Bias
Judge Ordóñez, in steadfastly and arbitrarily refusing to acknowledge or even
investigate the plaintiffs’ pattern of malfeasance, and instead accepting a suggestion by
the plaintiffs (even though their acts as perpetrators of procedural fraud to mislead the
court and harm my client have come to light) and issuing an arbitrary, baseless order
revealed that he was not and could not be an impartial judge in this matter. For these
and other reasons, my client therefore sought and obtained his recusal from the case
according to the law. 316
The Constitution and the Organic Code of the Judiciary guarantee the impartiality
of the judge. 317 Principles of due process protect the same right. 318 An impartial judge
means one who will not “replace his judgment with considerations of friendship, enmity,
sympathy or dislike with respect to the litigants or their legal representatives, or with the
possibility of personal gain or illicitly offered gifts, or with political reasons.” 319
By issuing the orders described above, supra § 3.1—refusing to investigate the
plaintiffs’ actions despite concrete proof of fraud, and inventing an evidentiary process
solely to assist the plaintiffs in whitewashing their misconduct—Judge Ordóñez revealed
his lack of interest in the truth; his lack of intent to rule based on the facts and law; his
lack of regard for due process; and his lack of impartiality. Accordingly, my client
316 See Motion to Recuse Judge Ordóñez, filed Aug. 26, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
317 2008 Const. art. 76(7)(k); Organic Code of the Judiciary, art. 9.
318 See 2008 Const. art. 76(7)(a).
319 DEVIS ECHANDÍA, Hernando. General Theory of Process. 3rd Edition, Editorial Universidad,
Buenos Aires, 2002, p. 129.
CERT. INTERMARK VER: JD
- 81 -