Those behind the fraudulent lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador continue to post false claims and shrill personal attacks against all who disagree with them.
In their latest attempt to rewrite history, lead plaintiffs’ attorney Steven Donziger and his associates are trying to claim they have legitimate science on their side, despite a March 4, 2014 federal court ruling, which found they violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act by committing fraud, bribery, extortion and other illegalities in procuring a judgment against Chevron in Ecuador.
That strategy is both ironic and perplexing considering the fact that all of Donziger’s experts have admitted under oath that his case had no scientific merit. (See what each of his scientific experts had to say here.) In fact, when one of his experts found no risk to health or the environment Donziger and his team drafted a fake report with fake findings and attached the expert’s signature without his knowledge.
Donziger himself admitted under oath at his RICO trial that he and his team secretly ghostwrote a scientific damage assessment in the name of a bribed court appointee. They also secretly ghost-wrote the Ecuadorian court’s judgment against Chevron.
If there were any doubt as to the lack of regard Donziger and his team have for legitimate science and evidence, consider what Donziger was caught on camera saying to his scientific advisors who expressed concern that water samples were not showing the sort of contamination that Donziger claimed:
“…this is Ecuador. … You can say whatever you want, and at the end of the day, there’s a thousand people around the courthouse. You’re going to get what you want. Sorry, but it’s true…Because at the end of the day, this is all for the court just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bullshit. It really is.”
Donziger and his team have never offered an answer to the central question surrounding their campaign against Chevron: if they had legitimate evidence, science and the law on their side, why did they resort to fraud and judicial corruption in an attempt to win their case?
