A recent delegation led by the Amazon Defense Front traveled to Louisiana in attempt to draw a parallel between a lawsuit backed by U.S. trial lawyers against Chevron and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

There is no question that the people of Oriente face difficulties. However, there is no valid comparison with the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the trial that is currently taking place in Ecuador. It is disappointing that the Amazon Defense Front (the named financial beneficiary in the Ecuador trial) and its supporters would take advantage of the people of the Gulf and their tragedy in an attempt to legitimize their fraudulent lawsuit against Chevron. But this is no surprise. This is the same type of deceit and manipulation they have used for years to exploit their own countrymen’s hardships in the Amazon.

In fact, many of the difficulties faced by the people of the Oriente have been exacerbated by the Amazon Defense Front, which has opposed the clean up in the region, harming the interests of the very people they claim to represent.

Texaco Petroleum ceased operating on behalf of a state-controlled consortium in the Oriente 20 years ago this month. The company left Ecuador after performing $40 million in environmental remediation that was approved by the government, releasing the company of all future obligations.

Since 1990, Petroecuador, Texaco’s majority partner, has been the exclusive operator of the oil fields, drilling an additional 414 new wells and amassing a poor environmental record. The state-owned oil company acknowledges its responsibilities and has begun its own clean-up. Petroecuador plans to remediate 370 pits, at a cost of $31.5 million, by 2013. So far, it has remediated 86 pits. It has the ability, expertise and, most importantly, the government’s support to complete the job.

However, U.S. trial lawyers behind the Lago Agrio lawsuit against Chevron and the Amazon Defense Front have interfered with Petroecuador’s cleanup.  They have petitioned the court to halt the cleanup– not out of concern for the environment but for fear the remediation was harming their case against Chevron.

In pursuit of their meritless complaint, the Amazon Defense Front lawyers have harmed Ecuador in many ways.  They have corrupted the trial, not only through publicity stunts like the one they exported to Louisiana recently, but also by falsifying expert reports, fabricating evidence, making unsubstantiated health claims and colluding with court experts. This fraud on Ecuador’s courts, government and citizens has damaged the nation’s international reputation with respect to corruption and judicial fairness.

In truth, the lawyers behind the Lago Agrio lawsuit are a barrier to the solutions that the people of the Oriente deserve. It is time they put their own financial interests aside.

Last week, we posted a blog entry that detailed two recent Petroecuador spills. In the post we asked why the Amazon Defense Front, Amazon Watch and the Rainforest Action Network have never condemned Petroecuador for the company’s spills and ongoing environmental mismanagement.

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.

It’s an old rule of thumb in public relations that you don’t announce news on a Friday unless you want to bury it.  The theory being that not as many people read the news on the weekend as they do during the week. Better to wait until Monday to put out a press release in the hopes that if a news outlet runs your story, more people will read it.  And that’s exactly what Amazon Defense Coalition’s PR firm did.

But the Amazon Defense Coalition has a problem – no legitimate news organization has ever produced a report based on one of their press releases. And this time was no different.  In fact, it is virtually impossible to find any Amazon Defense Coalition press release (easily over 100 press releases to date) that’s resulted in a report by a legitimate news organization – which is the main objective of publishing a press release in the first place.    That’s a pretty miserable track record and suggests that the Amazon Defense Coalition has almost no credibility in the eyes of legitimate news organizations.

At what point do Ben Barnes, Steven Donziger and the folks at Kohn, Swift & Graf inform Karen Hinton that her tactics aren’t working and replace her?  Perhaps they believe that blasting out misleading press releases over Business Wire that never result in news coverage is a winning strategy. If Amazon Defense Coalition’s target audience is only leftwing radical environmentalists, then their misinformation campaign might be having a small impact.  But, if the Amazon Defense Coalition is attempting to raise awareness by gaining media coverage for its cause, the campaign has been a miserable failure.

It’s easy to understand why the media would be wary of using an Amazon Defense Coalition press release as the bases for a story.  Many of Amazon Defense Coalition’s statements have been proven to be misleading at best.  Below you will find a few links to websites that have debunked their erroneous claims.

• The Amazon Post has extensive and well documented reports on Amazon Defense Coalition’s false statements.
• Hinton Communication Watch’s List of Lies also posts some whoppers.
• Bob McCarty has been on the frontlines, pushing back against Amazon Defense Coalition’s smear campaign.
• Carter Wood at the Shop Floor has also worked to expose Amazon Defense Coalition’s phony lawsuit against Chevron.

“Chevron Corp. said Thursday that executive vice president Charles James, who guides legal strategy for the nation’s second-largest oil and gas producer, will leave the company May 2 as part of a planned transition.

James, a former U.S. assistant attorney general who spent eight years with Chevron, plans to teach law at Arizona State University, the company said. He will be succeeded by general counsel R. Hewitt Pate.”

I’m counting the hours until the Amazon Defense Coalition puts out a press release chalk full of lies, completely misrepresenting Mr. James’ departure.  If history is any indicator, Karen Hinton is busy typing away at another press release that will hit the newswires later today or Monday, telling us that Mr. James’ departure is another blow to Chevron and a victory for the ADC.  I can also guarantee that if Hinton sends out anther press release, it will contain all the usual talking points we’ve seen repeated over and over again.  We might even see some left-wing paranoia thrown in for good measure.

Read more–>>

The political nature of the article is bizarre, but understandable when you look at the major players behind the lawsuit against Chevron.  It turns out that they’re all longtime Democratic Party operatives. From the trial lawyers funding the lawsuit, to lobbyist and PR consultants, and even politicians, they all share the same political ideology.  As ADC’s article states, “So what’s behind this? The answer is politics.”

Interesting passages stand out in the article that suggests the author may be Karen Hinton, Amazon Defense Coalition’s U.S. public relations consultant.  For example, the author attempts to analyze Chevron’s media strategy and concludes that, “[a]ny other company would use a consultant or public relations firm to execute this type of messy media hit job.”  Only someone in the PR biz would come up with a line like that.  Ironically, Hinton is an expert at messy media hit jobs.  Click here, and you’ll find a long list of inaccurate statements and missteps by Hinton on behalf of the Amazon Defense Coalition.  So let’s just chalk up the above quote to projection.

More specifically, Hinton’s messy PR practices were revealed in Amazon Defense Coalition’s response to Chevron’s press release about Cabrera’s conflict of interest.  Below is an excerpt from an article at the Amazon Post exposing several misleading statements made by Hinton.

From The Amazon Post:

“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.

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.

Read more–>>

SAN RAMON, Calif., Feb. 9, 2010 – In a court filing today in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, Chevron Corp. (NYSE:CVX) provided newly discovered information showing that the author of a report recommending that Chevron be ordered to pay $27 billion in damages is the majority owner of an oilfield remediation company that stands to gain financially from a judgment against Chevron. Due to the remediation company’s relationship with Ecuador’s state-owned oil company, Petroecuador, Chevron called upon the court to immediately reject the work of Richard Cabrera on the grounds that he knowingly hid his relationship and that he stands to gain from what was supposed to be unbiased work for the court.

Read more–>>

“Chevron Facing Free Speech Problems In U.S. Over Defense of $27 Billion Ecuador Lawsuit”

This statement comes from Hinton, a public relations professional whose sole purpose is to distribute press releases to the widest possible audience. Hinton’s tool of choice is a paid service called Business Wire.  Here’s a quote from Business Wire’s website describing its press release distribution services:

“Delivering your press release through Business Wire means you’ll reach all your targets: print and broadcast newsrooms, individual reporters and editors, consumers, financial and news portals, websites, news syndicators, bloggers, social media networks and more. And, our local newsrooms have the expertise to help guide you and your news to achieve your goals.”

Does that sound like the Amazon Defense Coalition is having a problem getting its message out?

The press release also goes out of its way to defend Cristobal Bonifaz, the lawyer who filed the original lawsuit against Chevron.  Bonifaz’s lawsuit was thrown out by a U.S. District Court judge after two plaintiffs admitted that they didn’t have cancer during cross-examination.  Bonifaz was fined $45,000 by the judge, who said Bonifaz should have known the cancer claims were bogus.

Chevron recently filed a malicious prosecution complaint against Bonifaz with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco which reads in part:

“The larger scheme is a long-standing and ongoing unlawful effort by Bonifaz and other lawyers and entities to extort money from Chevron by blaming it for harms that are as non-existent as the false cancer claims.”

Amazon Defense Coalition’s decision to hold Bonifaz up as a martyr is a mystery.  Hinton’s decision to draw the public’s attention to Bonifaz’s activities is a public relations blunder.

“The only reason the plaintiffs hired me was to respond to Chevron’s attacks in the press, not the other way around,” Hinton says. “Chevron has six PR firms on the payroll working on the lawsuit defence, and I stay very busy knocking down erroneous and misleading information shopped by these firms to reporters and bloggers.’’

A Google news search of ADC’s 2009 press releases reveals that the vast majority of Hinton’s work actually attacks Chevron and its employees, hardly a defensive posture as Hinton describes in her statement.  Chevron is actually the party adopting a defense posture, setting up its own blog specifically designed to counter the wave of false statements being released by Amazon Defense Coalition’s PR firm.

The Amazon Defense Coalition’s five biggest myths have already been debunked by Chevron’s blog:

• Myth 1:  Chevron is responsible for $27 billion worth of damages to the Amazon
• Myth 2: There have been over 1,400 cancer deaths as a result of oil pollution
• Myth 3: The judicial system in Ecuador is fair and independent
• Myth 4: Oil contamination in water is the biggest health threat facing the Oriente
• Myth 5: Texaco Petroleum is solely responsible for the problems in Ecuador’s Oriente region

Amazon Defense Coalition’s spokesperson also makes the claim that Chevron’s PR firms are feeding bloggers “erroneous and misleading information.”  However, Hinton never provides any proof to support her statement.  This accusation has been repeated in several forms which include calling bloggers, “paid by Chevron” or “sponsored by Chevron,” at several anti-Chevron blogs and by representatives from Amazon Watch. Most notably, the Amazon Defense Coalition blog wrote an article titled, “More Smoke from Chevron Bloggers.”  The “Chevron bloggers” slammed the story, forcing ADC’s blog to unceremoniously delete the accused bloggers’ comments.