Karen Hinton
Wednesday, December 9th 2009
“This lawsuit started in the United States and is financed by a law firm.” – Julio Prieto, plaintiff’s attorney
In a December 7th interview with Ecuadorian radio station Majestad, plaintiff’s attorney Julio Prieto makes mention of a law firm bankrolling the environmental lawsuit currently pending against Chevron in Ecuador.
The referenced firm is Kohn, Swift & Graf PC of Philadelphia, the primary entity providing a majority of, if not all of the funding for the lawsuit against Chevron.
When U.S.-based trial lawyer, Cristóbal Bonifaz, first concocted the original lawsuit against Texaco in 1993, he contacted Harold Kohn, a Philadelphia class-action lawyer. Shortly thereafter, Kohn’s son, Joe, who later became a partner at Kohn Swift & Graf, signed on. Subsequently, Kohn enlisted Steven Donziger, a New York-based trial lawyer who went to law school with Bonifaz’s son.
When asked about his motivation for taking on the case against Chevron in the movie Crude, Joe Kohn candidly stated, “it was not taken as a pro bono case, you know, a lot of my motivation is, at the end of the day… it will be a lucrative case for the firm.”
As part of the Kohn, Swift and Graf financed PR campaign to take Chevron’s reputation hostage and ransom it back to the company in the form of a large settlement, Kohn has hired DC lobbyist Ben Barnes to lobby the US Congress on “environmental matters resulting from oil exploration in Ecuador.” Barnes then hired DC based PR representative Karen Hinton to spread misinformation and distort the facts of the case.
Years of misinformation and distortion spread by U.S. trial lawyers and their PR cohorts lead the public and media to believe that 30,000 indigenous Amazonians are behind this lawsuit, and that any financial award from a settlement or verdict would go to the indigenous peoples of the Oriente.
However, the truth tells a different story. Kohn’s firm has coordinated a series of economic and political relationships between the Ecuadorian government, U.S. trial lawyers and activist groups in an effort to put pressure on a small rural courtroom in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, to find Chevron guilty in an environmental lawsuit. Any financial awards as a result of a settlement or judgment against Chevron would invariably go only to the Ecuadorian government and the U.S. contingency fee lawyers driving this frivolous lawsuit. In fact, Washington Pesántez Prosecutor General of Ecuador confirmed that “90% [of any judgment against Chevron] would be delivered to the State…”
One thing is certain, Chevron will continue to fight this misguided and disingenuous lawsuit until justice prevails.
Monday, November 16th 2009
In a statement from the pages of Politico.com, Amazon Defense Coalition PR representative, Karen Hinton asserts that the ADC’s tactics are “above board.” Does Hinton’s definition of “above board” include repeatedly lying about a murder to gain the sympathy and support of a well-intentioned, unsuspecting public? Hinton once again misrepresents a subject we’ve covered here before: the 2004 murder of Wilson Fajardo, brother of plaintiffs’ lawyer Pablo Fajardo.
Hinton asserted her side’s tactics have been above board, adding that, though “no one knows who murdered [the lawyer’s] brother,” the killing came at a time when the lawyer “and other members of the plaintiffs’ legal team had received a number of anonymous death threats connected to the work on the case.”–Politico.com, November 16, 2009
That sounds a lot like the line Pablo Fajardo himself told an audience in Zaragoza, Spain in 2008:
Fajardo has denounced “many problems” during the lawsuit. He mentioned telephone calls, letters and threats. He even said that his brother was murdered during the process. “I cannot say that Chevron killed him, nor can I say they did not.” –EFE Newswire, September 2, 2008
It’s also the same line the Goldman Foundation embraced when it awarded Fajardo its 2008 Environmental Prize:
Fajardo’s brother was killed just months after he joined the legal team; no investigation has taken place and no one has been arrested for the homicide. — Excerpt of narrative from Goldman Environmental Prize
And it’s the line Amazon Watch has disseminated for years:
Fajardo and Yanza have received death threats in Ecuador during their work on the case, and the brother of Fajardo was murdered in 2004 in what observers think may have been a case of mistaken identity. – Amazon Watch Press Release, April 16, 2008
In reality, Wilson Fajardo’s death has been thoroughly investigated and police reports have identified the local individuals responsible. For those interested in the truth, check out a prior post on subject, as well as documents dating back to 2004 that include reports from the police, prosecutors, witnesses and the forensic analysis. You will also find Fajardo’s August 2004 letter asking authorities to investigate his brother’s tragic death, where he identifies the people involved in the crime and never once mentions any connection to Chevron or the Lago Agrio litigation.
With facts and science against them, this is just another example in a long line of lies and fabrications perpetuated by U.S. trial lawyers in an attempt to hold Chevron’s reputation hostage and ransom it back to the company in the form of a settlement.
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.
