In the latest volley, the Front’s publicist, Karen Hinton, revisits the $3 million bribery scandal that entangled the judge presiding over the Lago Agrio trial as well as individuals representing themselves as members of the Ecuadorian government and its ruling political party.

After failed attempts to question the legitimacy of the videotape evidence, the Front is now taking aim at outside counsel for Chevron.  In its latest attack, the Front’s lawyers accuse Chevron counsel of concealing that Diego Borja, one of the men who recorded the meetings in which the bribery plot was discussed, had previously performed contract work for Chevron.

Yet, when Chevron announced that it had provided copies of the videotapes to authorities in the United States and Ecuador, Chevron stated in its press release that, “Evidence of the bribery plot was brought to Chevron’s attention in June by an Ecuadorian, who was pursuing business opportunities in Ecuador with an American businessman. The Ecuadorian, Diego Borja, has performed work for Chevron as a logistics contractor.”

This fact was widely reported by American media outlets like the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the San Francisco Chronicle.  In Ecuador, papers such as El Comercio, El Universo, La Hora, Expreso, and Hoy also reported that Mr. Borja had been a Chevron contractor.

Chevron counsel also disclosed this fact to the Lago Agrio court in multiple filings.

Diego Borja, in a sworn statement provided to authorities, also disclosed that he had previously performed work as a contractor for Chevron.

It’s unclear why the Front’s lawyers want to keep talking about government-authenticated videotapes that depict judicial misconduct, especially when Karen Hinton has stated that the Front has “full confidence in the Ecuadorian judicial system.”  It would seem that, in light of the facts, this position is just as misguided as the notion that Diego Borja’s prior work as a contractor is some sort of secret.  However, when faced with the choice of having to explain why their lawyers submitted fabricated expert reports to the court, perhaps a $3 million bribery scheme looks like a better topic of conversation.

According to the Front: “A water sample taken in the trial directly from this freshwater well showed toxic levels of likely carcinogens and harmful heavy metals that are derived from oil, including benzo[a]pyrene, indeno[1,2,3]pyrene, and cadmium. The U.S. government has determined that each of these chemicals are likely or probable carcinogens, as reflected in a toxic substance registry maintained at the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.”

We are at a loss to identify the “water sample taken in the trial.” Chevron’s data does not support this assertion and neither does the Front’s.  In fact, the following is a copy of the Front’s water data for samples collected at well site Shushufindi-38. The analysis was performed by Quito-based HAVOC laboratory and row “SSF38‐A2‐GW1‐NF(1.50)m” is their sample from the water well.

There’s a reason the Front makes claims without showing any data – the water well shows no exceedances of United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) drinking water criteria.  As displayed below, the Front’s result for cadmium (cadmio in Spanish) is 0.001 milligrams per liter (mg/L).  The USEPA National Primary drinking water regulation for cadmium is 0.005 milligrams per liter (mg/L).

Likewise, the following are the Front’s PAH (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, or HAPs in Spanish) results.  Column “A051124” refers to results from the water well.

The Front’s result for benzo[a]pyrene (pireno in Spanish) is 0.000031 milligrams per liter (mg/L).  The USEPA limit is 0.0002 mg/L.

The Front’s result for indeno[1,2,3]pyrene is 0.000012 mg/l.  There is no USEPA drinking water standard for indeno[1,2,3]pyrene.

So if the Front’s own data undermines the assertions it makes through its blog, what other accusations are being made that can’t be supported?  We already know that the Front’s lawyers submitted fabricated expert reports at the beginning of the trial.   If there was any merit to the Front’s lawyers’ case, they wouldn’t need to resort to making up evidence as they go along.

After learning about the spills, these groups, who claim to “work to protect the rainforest and advance the rights of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin” largely remained silent.  No press releases issued.  No press conferences held.  No campaigns mobilized.  No lawsuits filed.  Instead, only Amazon Watch spoke up, choosing to respond by blog post. Below is an excerpt from the posting, where the author states that the Amazon Defense Front has in fact gone after Petroecuador:

“First of all, the Amazon Defense Coalition – or the Frente – as well as indigenous groups throughout the area have in fact gone after Petroecuador and other oil companies operating in the region on numerous occasions, demanding clean-up of spills, and a general increase in responsible operations.”

This is a dubious claim as we know of no instance in which the Frente has taken on Petroecuador for its operational practices.  In fact, a lawyer for the Frente, Pablo Fajardo, is on the record calling for Petroecuador to stop its long overdue remediation work in the region because it was hurting his case against Chevron. The Frente assuming such a position is not especially surprising since it is the named financial beneficiary of the lawsuit in Ecuador.  Moreover, another lawyer for the Frente, Cristobal Bonifaz, told reporters in Ecuador that his clients had provided a sworn declaration to the government of Ecuador that they would refrain from suing Petroecuador in return for the government’s assistance with their lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Amazon Watch has continually turned a blind eye to events in Ecuador.  Could that be explained by the fact that Amazon Watch has been continually funded by the American trial lawyers suing Chevron?  Could this ongoing financial relationship also explain why Amazon Watch has never called on Petroecuador to clean up its portion of the oil fields, as the company has repeatedly promised to do?

Rather than provide factual information to support its claims, Amazon Watch resorts to the “trust us” retort.

Until there is evidence of these groups going after Petroecuador, one has to question if these lawyers and activists really are advocates of the environment and the indigenous people they claim to represent. Maybe they are more interested in taking Chevron to the cleaners than actually cleaning up the Amazon.

Yet the Amazon Defense Front, Amazon Watch and the Rainforest Action Network – groups backing a meritless lawsuit against Chevron – have said nothing. Despite claiming to advocate on behalf of the environment and the people of Ecuador’s Oriente, there have been no expressions of outrage. No denouncements of the companies operating in these areas. No indignant press releases. No press conferences. And, of course, no lawsuits.

April 17_2010: Photo facing northwest. General view of Petroecuador’s spill

April 17_2010: Photo facing southeast showing a berm built to dam fluids as part of the remediation activities by Petroecuador in the spill area located approximately 1 km North of Guanta Production Satation.

April 10_2010: Remediation activities of recent Petroecuador oil spill from production line near San Carlos.

April 10_2010: Remediation activities of recent Petroecuador oil spill from production line near San Carlos.

Location of Recent Oil Spills Occurred in the Former Petroecuador-Texpet Concession Area

Yet this behavior is consistent with an ongoing pattern of ignoring the conduct of Petroecuador and opposing Petroecuador’s clean-up efforts.  Given their track record, one has to ask if these lawyers and activists are really advocates of the environment or the indigenous people they claim to represent?

It very well may be that the Amazon Defense Front, Amazon Watch, and the Rainforest Action Network are more interested in taking Chevron to the cleaners than actually cleaning up the Amazon.

Cabrera has a previously undisclosed majority ownership interest in a company registered to do business with Petroecuador.  Petroecuador is the state owned oil company, chief polluter in the region, and beneficiary of Cabrera’s “findings.”  This evidence raises additional, serious questions about Cabrera’s independence and completely undermines the integrity of his report.

Seeing its potential payday at risk, the Amazon Defense Front scrambled to respond via press release.  While attempting to sidestep the issue, the Amazon Defense Front does not deny that Cabrera improperly failed to disclose his conflict of interest at the time of his appointment or thereafter. Nor does the Amazon Defense Front deny that had Cabrera’s ownership interest been properly disclosed, it would have been disqualifying.  Below is a response to four of the many misleading and inaccurate statements from the Amazon Defense Front press release:

“Cabrera disclosed to the court that he owned a clean-up company before his appointment as Special Master. This fact was properly cited by the court as one of the reasons he was qualified to do the damages assessment.”

This is a yet another of the Amazon Defense Front’s blatant attempts to mislead the public.

Exhibit 4 from the filing contains everything that Cabrera has disclosed.  Nowhere does Cabrera disclose the fact that he was a co-founder, general manager, majority stockholder, and legal representative of CAMPET at the time of his appointment as an “independent” technician or during his work for the court. CAMPET is a soil remediation company and preapproved contractor to Petroecuador. Cabrera affirmatively swore to the court that he had no conflicts of interest.  This has shown to be untrue by virtue of his financial interests in CAMPET.

The Amazon Defense Front’s statement is intended to misrepresent Cabrera’s disclosure about working for a different remediation company, CONGEMINPA, prior to his appointment.  Cabrera disclosed that his work with CONGEMINPA ended in 2003, and Cabrera had also sold all of his stock in GONGEMINMPA in 2003, years before his 2007 appointment in this case.  This past connection to a remediation company did not present a conflict of interest at the time of his appointment.  The Amazon Defense Front’s statement is meant to create the false impression that Cabrera disclosed his interest in CAMPET, the company he continued to own, manage, and legally represent during his entire tenure as a supposedly “independent” expert in the case.  But he did not make any such disclosure.  In fact, German Yanez, the judge who appointed Cabrera, told Dow Jones Newswires Feb. 9 he didn’t know about CAMPET or whether the company’s registration as a bid contractor for Petroecuador constituted any conflict of interest.

“All I know is what I saw in his curriculum (vitae),” said Yanez. “If there’s missing information, I don’t know why.”

“Chevron thought so highly of Cabrera’s qualifications that it accepted him as a court-appointed expert in an earlier part of the case and paid his fees as required by court rules.”

This is factually incorrect.

Cabrera was appointed by the court in an earlier phase of the trial, but he performed no work and at no time has Chevron paid Cabrera for anything. On the contrary, the plaintiffs paid Cabrera more than $200,000 for his subsequent work.

Chevron has repeatedly and unwaveringly questioned Cabrera’s qualifications since his original involvement in the case, has opposed his report, and has repeatedly told the court that his damages assessment is without basis, is biased, and was developed with and co-written by the plaintiffs.  At no time has Chevron ever “thought highly of Cabrera’s qualifications” to be an expert in this case.

“The fact Cabrera’s company is qualified to bid on clean-up contracts offered by Ecuador’s state-owned oil company is irrelevant. That company, Petroecuador, is not a party to the case against Chevron and would have no role in any eventual cleanup.”

This is factually incorrect.

Petroecuador was the majority partner in the consortium and is responsible for every site in question. Moreover, no remediation work in the oil producing region could occur without Petroecuador’s active involvement, participation, and authorization.  Simply put, nothing could happen in Petroecuador’s oil fields, including a remediation ordered by the court, without Petroecuador.

Meanwhile, the government of Ecuador has already acknowledged that it expects to participate in any prospective remediation work.  At a September 2009 press conference, Ecuador’s Prosecutor General, Washington Pesantez said, “Although I don’t have the exact figures, 10 percent would go to the plaintiffs if Chevron is found guilty; 90 percent would be delivered to the State for remediation or bio-remediation activities that would serve to correct biologic and chemical mechanisms…”

In addition, “the fact Cabrera’s company is qualified to bid on clean-up contracts offered by” Petroecuador is extremely relevant: — Cabrera’s report attempts at every turn to exonerate Petroecuador for 20 years of sloppy practices.  In his report Cabrera exonerates Petroecuador of the current environmental conditions in the region, grossly inflates the scope of remediation and costs of the work, and even calls on the court to award $375 million to upgrade Petroecuador’s infrastructure.  Cabrera’s company’s registration to do work for Petroecuador provides the perfect incentive for Cabrera to go to such absurd lengths to lavish benefits on Petroecuador in his report, and the perfect opportunity for Petroecuador to return the favor.

“Cabrera by virtue of his role in the case would be barred from having a role in a future clean-up.”

This statement is inherently contradictory and is made without any factual support. First the Amazon Defense Front says there is no conflict at all, and then it says that Cabrera does indeed have a conflict of interest.  His financial stake in remediation explains why Cabrera, on at least ten different occasions, concealed from the court his conflict of interest — a violation of Ecuador law.  Accordingly, Cabrera’s report should be rejected and Cabrera’s connection to Petroecuador should be investigated.

Chevron has consistently argued that it is not getting a fair trial in Ecuador. Evidence presented to the court shows Texaco Petroleum’s remediation was thorough and complete. Amazon Defense Front has teamed up with the government of Ecuador to try to shift the liability of Petroecuador to Chevron by pressuring the company into an unjust settlement using a biased and improperly influenced court and a partisan and unqualified “independent” analyst.