Amazon Defense Coalition
Wednesday, September 23rd 2009
Amazon Defense Coalition spokesperson Karen Hinton has admitted that several accusations made in a recent press release are false.
On Sept. 9, Hinton issued a press release on behalf of the Amazon Defense Coalition accusing Wayne Hansen, one of the individuals who videotaped meetings in Ecuador between himself, Judge Juan Nunez and other purported political operatives discussing how Chevron will lose the trial and any subsequent appeals, of having a past relationship with Chevron. Chevron had previously stated that Hansen had no ties to the company.
Despite that, the press release headline stated, “American Businessman Wayne Hansen Has Ties to Chevron in Bribery Scheme, Investigation Finds.” The release claimed the Amazon Defense Coalition had found several pieces of “evidence,” gathered in an “investigation” that proved a link between Chevron and Hansen.
Hinton has since admitted that her “investigation” was little more than an internet search, which turned up information that was completely wrong. She confirmed the errors in a recent interview with Upstream, an energy industry publication:
“Apparently that’s not him,” Hinton admitted to the reporter
The Upstream article continued: “When asked if she (Hinton) had any proof of a link she replied: ‘No, not at this point.’”
The story also said, “Karen Hinton said she had found information about a Wayne Hansen on the internet and had not independently verified it before making the claim.”
Several Amazon Defense Coalition claims made by Hinton in the September 9th release have been debunked by independent news outlets. These claims include:
• Hansen is “connected to a consulting firm that lists Chevron as a client”
• “Chevron’s ties to Hansen directly contradict repeated assertions by Chevron lawyers and spokespersons that the company has no relationship to the American businessman,” said Karen Hinton — A statement known to be false.
• “Hansen’s biography obtained on the Internet identifies him as the former Chief Mechanical Engineer and Director of Energy Engineering at RJM Associates, which lists Chevron as a client.” — Another error. Hinton had the wrong person.
In a September 10 piece by San Francisco Chronicle Staff Writer David Baker, the journalist once again disproves Hinton’s accusations. An excerpt from the story is found below:
“The coalition said Hansen used to work for Richard J. Miller & Associates, a California oil-field appraisal firm that lists Chevron as one of its clients. But the firm’s owner, Richard Miller, said no one named Wayne Hansen had worked there. ‘We’ve been a one-man shop since 1990,’ he said.”
Numerous other claims levied by Hinton and the Amazon Defense Coalition against Chevron have also been proven to be false. The Amazon Defense Coalition’s bungled “investigation” once again calls into question their credibility.
Tuesday, September 8th 2009
9/8/09 Update – Lawyer Fernando Larrea, in a September 7th interview with Ecuavisa, affirms that Judge Nunez violated the law when he accepted meetings with individuals seeking environmental remediation contracts. Judge Nunez recused himself from the case on September 4th.
9/4 – Ecuadorian Judge Juan Núñez, the judge presiding over the Chevron environmental lawsuit in Lago Agrio, made the decision Friday to recuse himself from the case. Chevron has maintained that no judge who has participated in the type of meetings shown in the video recordings (released earlier in the week) could possibly have rendered a legitimate decision.
Transcripts of a meeting recorded on June 5 clearly show the judge has prejudged the case even though evidence was still being submitted and final arguments have not been held. And the judge was willing to talk about that decision with businessmen (Hansen) seeking post-verdict remediation contracts.
- Núñez: “Any other questions for me as a judge?”
- Hansen: “Oh no, I, I know clearly how it is, you say, Chevron is the guilty party?”
- Núñez: “Yes Sir.”
- Hansen: “And the, the, the act (decision) is October or November of this year?”
- Núñez: “Yes Sir.”
- Hansen: “And it’s …?”
- Núñez: “No later than January.”
- Hansen: “January 2010. And the money is twenty-seven (billion dollars)?”
- Núñez: “It might be less, and it might be more.”
–The Amazon Defense Coalition supported and defended Judge Núñez:
Surprisingly, the Amazon Defense Coalition rushed to the defense of the judge, even though video evidence showed he was having inappropriate meetings. Rather than concede that the judges’ conduct is improper, the Amazon Defense Coalition defended Judge Núñez’s conduct, the Ecuadorian judicial process and vehemently attacked Chevron for turning over evidence of judicial misconduct.
After the videos were made public on August 31st, Karen Hinton, US spokesperson for the Amazon Defense Coalition said the following, “We have full confidence in the Ecuadorian judicial system…”
In a September 2nd interview with EFE news agency, the Amazon Defense Coalition again defended Núñez and his conduct. In the interview, attorney Pablo Fajardo states, “The judge ‘has acted straight (…) and that rectitude, honesty and openness of the judge is what terrorizes Chevron.’”
The Amazon Defense Coalition’s steadfast support for the judge despite evidence of inappropriate conduct raises important questions about the organization’s tactics and disregard for a fair and impartial hearing of this case.
–Judge’s rulings must be annulled, investigation must move forward:
Now that Judge Núñez has stepped down, it is important that his prior rulings be annulled, including numerous improper rulings to facilitate, as well as shield from scrutiny, the biased Cabrera process.
Moreover, recent statements by Ecuadorian government officials indicate an intent to attack Chevron rather than investigate potentially inappropriate actions by party officials such as Patricio Garcia and Alexis Mera.
The removal of Judge Núñez must not be an attempt to deflect attention from the serious indications of political interference with the case that appear in the video recordings.
Wednesday, September 2nd 2009
“We have full confidence in the Ecuadorian judicial system, as does Chevron.”
-Karen Hinton, spokesperson for the Amazon Defense Coalition.
Not true. Chevron has consistently asserted that the case has involved improper complicity between the plaintiffs and Ecuador’s executive branch and other legal irregularities. And Chevron has asserted that it cannot get a fair trial.
On August 31, 2009, Chevron released a series of videos that depicted Judge Juan Nunez taking part in improper meetings. In the videos, the judge confirms that he will rule against Chevron and that appeals by the energy company will be denied — even though the trial is ongoing and evidence is still being received.
In every country where the rule of law prevails, a judge who has done what Judge Nunez is seen doing in the videotapes would be dismissed from the case and his previous rulings would be annulled.
There are clear and longstanding problems with the judicial system in Ecuador which are widely recognized by international legal experts.
Ecuador’s Judiciary: The Reality:
Let us take a closer look at the judiciary being defended by the Amazon Defense Coalition. In a 2009 statement, the U.S. State Department, Investment Climate said, “Corruption is a serious problem in Ecuador. The courts are often susceptible to outside pressure and bribes. Neither Congressional oversight nor internal judicial branch mechanisms have shown a consistent capacity to effectively investigate and discipline allegedly corrupt judges.”
Additionally, the 2008 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks Ecuador 151st out of the 180 countries surveyed for the Corruption Perceptions Index, with a score of 2.0. This score is on par with the Republic of Congo (1.9, 158/180), and worse than Cuba (4.3, 65/180) and Iran (2.3, 141/180).
Ecuador’s Judiciary: The Deterioration:
A series of well-documented government decisions have weakened the country’s judicial system since November 2004. The problems accelerated when Congress initiated impeachment proceedings against the President at the time (President Gutierrez). In response, President Gutierrez orchestrated a new Congressional majority that halted the impeachment proceedings and then purged the Supreme Court of Justice, the Constitutional Tribunal, and the Electoral Court. The purgings were widely criticized by the international community, including United Nations (also here), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the International Bar Association.
When President Correa came to power in January 2007, he strengthened the government’s grip on the judiciary even further. Recently, Ecuador’s el Universo newspaper reported that three judges were dismissed because they ruled against the interests of the state and in favor of the construction company Andrade Gutiérrez. Meanwhile, it has been reported that judges of Ecuador’s National Court of Justice are considering a criminal claim against Ecuador’s prosecutor general Washington Pesántez for his ongoing interference in the judicial system.
It’s curious that American trial lawyers pursuing this case against Chevron have full confidence in a judiciary that is reported to be heavily controlled by the country’s executive branch.
Perhaps it’s because the government is strongly supporting the case against Chevron.
In this environment, its clear Chevron cannot get a fair trial.
Wednesday, May 27th 2009
The Amazon Defense Coalition, the financial beneficiary of the lawsuit in Ecuador, issued a press release on 5/8/09 regarding a waste pit at Shushufindi-38 near Manuel Salinas’ home. The release alleges that Mr. Salinas’ water well is contaminated, and Texaco Petroleum was to blame.
In fact, Texaco Petroleum remediated all of the pits it was responsible for. Petroecuador is responsible for remediating the Shushufindi-38 site, and began that remediation in 2007. In addition, Petroecuador can be seen here performing a work-over (work-overs are major repairs or modifications to a well) on the site as recently as November 17, 2005 (others occurred in 1991, 1993, 1994 and two in 2002, all after Petroecuador assumed responsibility for Sushufindi-38.) In 2005, both parties sampled Mr. Salinas’ well and found that the water met USEPA drinking water standards for hydrocarbons and metals.
Click here to view Chevron’s point-counterpoint rebuttal to the charges contained within the press release.
