DOCSLIB.ORG

In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ______

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ______ No. 14-826(L) No. 14-832(CON) In the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ____________________________ CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. HUGO GERARDO CAMACHO NARANJO, JAVIER PIAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE, STEVEN DONZIGER, THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DONZIGER, DONZIGER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Defendants-Appellants, (caption continues on inside cover) ____________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan) _________________________________________________________ CORRECTED BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS STEVEN DONZIGER, THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DONZIGER, AND DONZIGER & ASSOCIATES PLLC _________________________________________________________ JUSTIN MARCEAU DEEPAK GUPTA JOHN CAMPBELL GREGORY A. BECK University of Denver JONATHAN E. TAYLOR Sturm College of Law Gupta Beck PLLC 2255 E. Evans Ave. 1735 20th Street, NW Denver, CO 80208 Washington, DC 20009 (303) 871-6000 (202) 888-1741 Counsel for Defendants-Appellants Steven Donziger, The Law Offices of Steven Donziger, and Donziger & Associates PLLC July 16, 2014 STRATUS CONSULTING, INC., DOUGLAS BELTMAN, ANN MAEST, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA, LUIS YANZA, FRENTE DE DEFENSA DE LA AMAZONIA, AKA AMAZON DEFENSE FRONT, SELVA VIVA SELVIVA CIA, LTDA, MARIA AGUINDA SALAZAR, CARLOS GREFA HUATATOCA, CATALINA ANTONIA AGUINDA SALAZAR, LIDIA ALEXANDRA AGUIN AGUINDA, PATRICIO ALBERTO CHIMBO YUMBO, CLIDE RAMIRO AGUINDA AGUINDA, LUIS ARMANDO CHIMBO YUMBO, BEATRIZ MERCEDES GREFA TANGUILA, LUCIO ENRIQUE GREFA TANGUILA, PATRICIO WILSON AGUINDA AGUINDA, CELIA IRENE VIVEROS CUSANGUA, FRANCISCO MATIAS ALVARADO YUMBO, FRANCISCO ALVARADO YUMBO, OLGA GLORIA GREFA CERDA, LORENZO JOSE ALVARADO YUMBO, NARCISA AIDA TANGUILA NARVAEZ, BERTHA ANTONIA YUMBO TANGUILA, GLORIA LUCRECIA TANGUI GREFA, FRANCISO VICTOR TRANGUIL GREFA, ROSA TERESA CHIMBO TANGUILA, JOSE GABRIEL REVELO LLORE, MARIA CLELIA REASCOS REVELO, MARIA MAGDALENA RODRI BARCENES, JOSE MIGUEL IPIALES CHICAIZA, HELEODORO PATARON GUARACA, LUISA DELIA TANGUILA NARVAEZ, LOURDES BEATRIZ CHIMBO TANGUIL, MARIA HORTENCIA VIVER CUSANGUA, SEGUNDO ANGEL AMANTA MILAN, OCTAVIO ISMAEL CORDOVA HUANCA, ELIA ROBERTO PIYAHUA PAYAHUAJE, DANIEL CARLOS LUSITAND YAIGUAJE, BENANCIO FREDY CHIMBO GREFA, GUILLERMO VICENTE PAYAGUA LUSITANTE, DELFIN LEONIDAS PAYAGU PAYAGUAJE, ALFREDO DONALDO PAYAGUA PAYAGUAJE, MIGUEL MARIO PAYAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE, TEODORO GONZALO PIAGUAJ PAYAGUAJE, FERMIN PIAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE, REINALDO LUSITANDE YAIGUAJE, LUIS AGUSTIN PAYAGUA PIAGUAJE, EMILIO MARTIN LUSITAND YAIGUAJE, SIMON LUSITANDE YAIGUAJE, ARMANDO WILFRIDO PIAGUA PAYAGUAJE, ANGEL JUSTINO PIAGUAG LUCITANT, KEMPERI BAIHUA HUANI, AHUA BAIHUA CAIGA, PENTIBO BAIHUA MIIPO, DABOTA TEGA HUANI, AHUAME HUANI BAIHUA, APARA QUEMPERI YATE, BAI BAIHUA MIIPO, BEBANCA TEGA HUANI, COMITA HUANI YATE, COPE TEGA HUANI, EHUENGUINTO TEGA, GAWARE TEGA HUANI, MARTIN BAIHUA MIIPO, MENCAY BAIHUA TEGA, MENEMO HUANI BAIHUA, MIIPO YATEHUE KEMPERI, MINIHUA HUANI YATE, NAMA BAIHUA HUANI, NAMO HUANI YATE, OMARI APICA HUANI, OMENE BAIHUA HUANI, YEHUA TEGA HUANI, WAGUI COBA HUANI, WEICA APICA HUANI, TEPAA QUIMONTARI WAIWA, NENQUIMO VENANCIO NIHUA, COMPA GUIQUITA, CONTA NENQUIMO QUIMONTARI, DANIEL EHUENGEI, NANTOQUI NENQUIMO, OKATA QUIPA NIHUA, CAI BAIHUA QUEMPERI, OMAYIHUE BAIHUA, TAPARE AHUA YETE, TEWEYENE LUCIANA NAM TEGA, ABAMO OMENE, ONENCA ENOMENGA, PEGO ENOMENGA, WANE IMA, WINA ENOMENGA, CAHUIYA OMACA, MIMA YETI, Defendants, ANDREW WOODS, LAURA J. GARR, H5, Respondents TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................v INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... 1 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ......................................................................... 4 STATEMENT ...................................................................................................... 5 I. For two decades, Ecuadorian rainforest communities seek—and ultimately win—a judgment holding Chevron responsible for dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon.................... 5 A. Chevron pollutes the Ecuadorian Amazon (1970s & 1980s)......................................................................................... 5 B. Ecuadorians bring an environmental case against Chevron in New York, and Chevron convinces the court to dismiss the case by promising to satisfy any Ecuadorian judgment against it (1993-2002) ................................................. 8 C. Disregarding its promises to this Court, Chevron repeatedly tries to thwart the Ecuadorian case (2003- 2010) .........................................................................................11 D. Hundreds of site inspections and expert reports— including those from Chevron’s own experts—confirm Chevron violated the law (2006-10)...........................................20 E. Chevron shifts its strategy to collateral attacks outside Ecuador and adopts the “demonize Donziger” playbook (2007-2011) ...............................................................................21 F. Chevron obtains unprecedented discovery in U.S. courts .........24 G. Chevron uses the vast “universe” of documents it obtained in discovery to carry out its “demonize Donziger” strategy ....................................................................29 H. The Ecuadorian court enters a preliminary judgment against Chevron (February 2011) ..............................................33 i I. The Ecuadorian court clarifies its judgment (March 2011) ........36 J. Chevron declines to challenge the preliminary judgment under Ecuador’s Collusion Prosecution Act ..............................36 K. An Ecuadorian three-judge court reviews the case de novo and enters a substitute judgment against Chevron (2012) ........................................................................................38 L. The Ecuadorian Supreme Court grants “cassation” review, affirms liability, and reduces damages (2013) ................39 II. Chevron brings this action as yet another collateral, preemptive attack on enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment ..............................40 A. Chevron files this action ............................................................40 B. The district court grants a temporary restraining order ............42 C. The district court issues a worldwide injunction ........................44 D. This Court, in Chevron v. Naranjo, promptly reverses the injunction and orders dismissal of the severed ninth claim ........46 E. Chevron immediately attempts to evade Naranjo .......................47 F. The district court refuses to allow the defendants to drop their collateral-estoppel defenses ...............................................48 G. The court allows Chevron to drop its “sham litigation” claim .........................................................................................48 H. Chevron forces Donziger to proceed pro se and drops its damages claim on the eve of trial to avoid a jury .......................50 III. After a seven-week bench trial, the district court again issues a decision preemptively nullifying the Ecuadorian judgment ...................51 A. The court holds a seven-week bench trial ..................................51 1. Chevron’s allegations of impropriety regarding the judgment .........................................................................52 ii 2. Chevron’s allegations of fraud regarding the Cabrera Report...............................................................61 3. Chevron’s allegation that the Ecuadorian judiciary is corrupt. ........................................................................64 B. The court issues its decision ......................................................65 STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................................................ 67 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......................................................................... 68 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................... 69 I. Because Chevron lacks standing, the district court lacked jurisdiction to issue its opinion and judgment. .......................................69 A. Chevron cannot show that the alleged trial-level misconduct caused the substitute judgment of the three- judge appellate court. ................................................................72 1. The appellate court’s substitute judgment—the product of a de novo review of the record—breaks any causal link between alleged trial-level improprieties and Chevron’s injuries...............................73 2. The district court’s conclusion about the standard of review contradicts Ecuador’s highest court on a question of Ecuadorian appellate procedure. ..................75 B. Chevron failed to demonstrate any concrete injuries that could be redressed by the relief sought. .....................................79 C. Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case, its findings—particularly findings related to professional misconduct—should be vacated. ...........................82 II. Chevron’s collateral attack on the Ecuadorian judgment violates bedrock international-comity principles and is authorized by neither state nor federal law. .................................................................84
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Response to Doug Cassel's Apology for Chevron's Human Rights Violations in Ecuador*
    Response to Doug Cassel's Apology for Chevron's Human Rights Violations In Ecuador* Notre Dame law professor Doug Cassel has sold his credibility as a human rights advocate to Chevron, a company that in Ecuador and elsewhere has proven itself to have committed significant human rights abuses against vulnerable peoples.1 In an argument based heavily on Chevron’s own misrepresentations, Cassel asserts in an “Open Letter” to the human rights community that a court finding in Ecuador that Chevron's toxic dumping decimated indigenous groups and wrecked the delicate Amazon ecosystem is illegitimate. We believe that Cassel's facts are inaccurate or stripped from context, his scholarship is rife with shortcomings, and his conclusions are deeply flawed. What is indisputable is that Cassel remained silent for the entire 18 years of this landmark battle for human rights justice until Chevron recently retained him.2 This is a sad spectacle indeed for a man who has dedicated much of his career to the field of human rights law. Cassel cites supposed "defects" in the Ecuador trial process—defects which take place regularly in trials the world over—to condemn not only the entire eight-year proceeding that resulted in the judgment against Chevron, but also the entire judicial system of a U.S. ally with an independent judiciary where Chevron itself has won multiple cases in recent years.3 Cassel also engages in false and defamatory * This document was prepared by members of the legal team that represents the Lago Agrio plaintiffs. Chevron operated under the “Texaco” brand in Ecuador from 1964-1992.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Southern District of New York
    Case 1:19-cr-00561-LAP Document 328 Filed 06/09/21 Page 1 of 26 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNITED STATES, Plaintiff, 11 Cr. 0691 (LAP) v. STEVEN DONZIGER, Defendant. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND OFFER OF PROOF Martin Garbus, Esq. OFFIT | KURMAN 590 Madison Ave., 6th Floor New York, NY 10022 Tel. 347.589.8513 Fax. 212.545.1656 [email protected] Counsel for defendant Case 1:19-cr-00561-LAP Document 328 Filed 06/09/21 Page 2 of 26 INTRODUCTION This case is extraordinary. For the first time in the history of the United States, a private law firm with substantial ties to the oil and gas industry has been granted the powers of the United States to prosecute an adverse party and human rights attorney. To make matters worse, Mr. Donziger has been denied a jury of his peers and the presiding judge (the Hon. Loretta Preska) was handpicked by the aggrieved party (the Hon. Lewis Kaplan) to preside over the case.1 Even more disturbing is that this appears to be the nation's first corporate prosecution given that the oil company (Chevron) against whom Mr. Donziger won a large pollution judgement in Ecuador is a client of the very law firm (Seward & Kissel) now prosecuting him after the charges were declined by the U.S. attorney. In short, this case has all the trappings of a deeply troubled and conflicted prosecution run by an oil company. As a threshold issue, this case has been riddled with such structural decay as to warrant immediate dismissal on all charges.
    [Show full text]
  • Donziger's Counterclaims
    Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 567-1 Filed 08/15/12 Page 94 of 152 COUNTERCLAIMS Defendants and Counter-Claimants Steven Donziger, The Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger, and Donziger & Associates, PLLC (collectively, “Donziger”) for their Counterclaims against Plaintiff and Counter-Claim Defendant Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) allege as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. By no later than 2009, Chevron recognized that it was on the verge of losing one of the largest oil-related contamination lawsuits ever to go to trial, Maria Aguinda y Otros v. Chevron Corporation (the “Lago Agrio Litigation”), which had been wending its way through the United States and then the Ecuadorian court systems for 16 years. Chevron’s own documents, internal environmental audits, and expert analyses confirmed the toxic legacy its predecessor, Texaco, Inc. (“Texaco”), intentionally and knowingly had left behind in the Oriente region of Ecuador. And Chevron was running out of maneuvers to dodge entirely or delay a final adjudication of the claims against it on the merits. 2. Texaco—and, later, a merged entity referring to itself as “ChevronTexaco” — repeatedly had demanded that the trial not be heard in United States federal court in New York, the plaintiffs’ preferred forum, but rather in Ecuador, a forum which Chevron successfully argued to the Southern District of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was “fair” and “totally adequate” and capable of handling a complex lawsuit against a foreign corporation such as Chevron. In so doing, Chevron did not believe that the 30,000 indigenous peoples and others impacted by Texaco’s misconduct (the “Afectados”)—who grew up drinking from the streams into which the company has admitted dumping billions of gallons of toxic “production water” during its 25 years of profitable operations in the region—would re- 92 685851 Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 567-1 Filed 08/15/12 Page 95 of 152 file their environmental claims in Ecuador, or that Chevron would fail in its efforts to derail any Ecuadorian lawsuit.
    [Show full text]
  • Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador?
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Richmond Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business Volume 13 | Issue 3 Article 4 2014 Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador? How the Existing International Due Process Analysis May Be Ineffective in Keeping Fraudulent Foreign Judgments Out of U.S. Courts Christopher Lento Louisiana State University Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/global Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Christopher Lento, Will What Happened in Ecuador Stay in Ecuador? How the Existing International Due Process Analysis May Be Ineffective in Keeping Fraudulent Foreign Judgments Out of U.S. Courts, 13 Rich. J. Global L. & Bus. 493 (2014). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/global/vol13/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Richmond Journal of Global Law & Business by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 35295-rgl_13-3 Sheet No. 32 Side A 09/09/2014 14:33:00 \\jciprod01\productn\R\RGL\13-3\RGL303.txt unknown Seq: 1 9-SEP-14 8:51 WILL WHAT HAPPENED IN ECUADOR STAY IN ECUADOR? HOW THE EXISTING INTERNATIONAL DUE PROCESS ANALYSIS MAY BE INEFFECTIVE IN KEEPING FRAUDULENT FOREIGN JUDGMENTS OUT OF U.S. COURTS* By: Christopher Lento** ABSTRACT: Recent evidence in the decades-old Chevron/Ec- uador litigation suggests that the $18 billion judgment rendered against Chevron by an Ecuadorian court may have been a product of conspiracy and fraud on an al- most unprecedented scale.
    [Show full text]
  • Nadler Letter .Sept10
    STEVEN R. DONZIGER 245 WEST 104TH STREET, SUITE 7D NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10025 (917) 566-2526 September 10, 2020 The Honorable Jerold Nadler 2132 Rayburn House Office Building The United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Re: Chevron’s Attacks On Environmental Lawyer Steven Donziger Dear Chairman Nadler: I write to ask you to consider initiating an investigation of the oil giant Chevron’s disgraceful misuse of the federal judiciary to violate the fundamental rights of me and my family and to deny 30,000 Ecuadorians—many of them Indigenous peoples—a $9.5 billion judgment as compensation for more than 30 years of appalling environmental crimes. I’ve attached the names of 24,000 people who signed an online letter asking you and Congress to take this action. This case has been covered extensively by the mainstream press and generated attention from hundreds of human-rights lawyers, dozens of Nobel Laureates, the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Human Rights, and two retired U.S. federal judges, but none of this has changed Chevron’s actions. I believe you are the only person in America who can shift Chevron’s behavior, as a result of the immense power you wield as Chairman of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee. First, as regards my personal situation, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School and one of your constituents as a resident in Manhattan for the last 25 years. As a lead lawyer on this successful and historic case, I have for the last 13 months been detained without trial in my Manhattan apartment where I live with my wife and young son.
    [Show full text]
  • Chevron V. Donziger RICO Opinion
    Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 1 of 497 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, -against- 11 Civ. 0691 (LAK) STEVEN DONZIGER, et al., Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x OPINION Appearances: Randy M. Mastro Richard H. Friedman Andrea E. Neuman FRIEDMAN | RUBIN Reed M. Brodsky William E. Thompson Zoe Littlepage Anne Champion Rainey C. Booth GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP LITTLEPAGE BOOTH Attorneys for Plaintiff Steven Donziger G. Robert Blakey William J. and Dorothy K. O’Neill Attorneys for Defendant Steven Donziger and Professor Emeritus Steven R. Donziger & Associates LLP Notre Dame Law School Amicus Curiae Julio C. Gomez JULIO C. GOMEZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW LLC Attorney for Defendants Hugo Gerardo Camacho Naranjo and Javier Piaguaje Payaguaje Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 2 of 497 Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1874 Filed 03/04/14 Page 3 of 497 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................1 Facts........................................................................5 I. The Background ...................................................5 A. Texaco’s Operations in Ecuador ................................5 B. Aguinda ...................................................7 1. The Principal Plaintiffs’ Lawyers in Aguinda ...............8
    [Show full text]
  • Chevron's Abusive Litigation in Ecuador
    Rainforest Chernobyl Revisited† The Clash of Human Rights and BIT Investor Claims: Chevron’s Abusive Litigation in Ecuador’s Amazon by Steven Donziger,* Laura Garr & Aaron Marr Page** a marathon environmental litigation: Seventeen yearS anD Counting he last time the environmental lawsuit Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco was discussed in these pages, the defen- Tdant Chevron Corporation1 had just won a forum non conveniens dismissal of the case from a U.S. federal court to Ecuador after nine years of litigation. Filed in 1993, the lawsuit alleged that Chevron’s predecessor company, Texaco, while it exclusively operated several oil fields in Ecuador’s Amazon from 1964 to 1990, deliberately dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste into the rainforest to cut costs and abandoned more than 900 large unlined waste pits that leach toxins into soils and groundwater. The suit contended that the contamination poisoned an area the size of Rhode Island, created a cancer epi- demic, and decimated indigenous groups. During the U.S. stage of the litigation, Chevron submitted fourteen sworn affidavits attesting to the fairness and adequacy of Ecuador’s courts. The company also drafted a letter that was By Lou Dematteis/Redux. Steven Donziger, attorney for the affected communities, speaks with signed by Ecuador’s then ambassador to the United States, a Huaorani women outside the Superior Court at the start of the Chevron former Chevron lawyer, asking the U.S. court to send the case trial on October 21, 2003 in Lago Agrio in the Ecuadoran Amazon. to Ecuador.2 Representative of Chevron’s position was the sworn statement from Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 14-0826(L) Chevron Corp. V. Donziger UNITED STATES COURT OF
    Case 14-832, Document 319-1, 08/08/2016, 1834987, Page1 of 127 14-0826(L) Chevron Corp. v. Donziger 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2014 5 (Argued: April 20, 2015 Decided: August 8, 2016) 6 Final briefs submitted June 1, 2015 7 Docket Nos. 14-0826(L), 14-0832(C) 8 _____________________________________________________________ 9 CHEVRON CORPORATION, 10 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11 - v. - 12 STEVEN DONZIGER, THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DONZIGER, DONZIGER 13 & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, HUGO GERARDO CAMACHO NARANJO, JAVIER 14 PIAGUAJE PAYAGUAJE, 15 Defendants-Appellants, 16 STRATUS CONSULTING, INC., DOUGLAS BELTMAN, ANN MAEST, 17 Defendants-Counter-Claimants, 18 Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, Luis Yanza, Frente De Defensa De La Amazonia aka Amazon 19 Defense Front, Selva Viva Selviva CIA, LTDA, Maria Aguinda Salazar, Carlos Grefa 20 Huatatoca, Catalina Antonia Aguinda Salazar, Lidia Alexandra Aguinda Aguinda, Patricio 21 Alberto Chimbo Yumbo, Clide Ramiro Aguinda Aguinda, Luis Armando Chimbo Yumbo, 22 Beatriz Mercedes Grefa Tanguila, Lucio Enrique Grefa Tanguila, Patricio Wilson Aguinda 23 Aguinda, Celia Irene Viveros Cusangua, Francisco Matias Alvarado Yumbo, Francisco 24 Alvarado Yumbo, Olga Gloria Grefa Cerda, Lorenzo José Alvarado Yumbo, Narcisa Aida 25 Tanguila Narváez, Bertha Antonia Yumbo Tanguila, Gloria Lucrecia Tanguila Grefa, 26 Francisco Victor Tanguila Grefa, Rosa Teresa Chimbo Tanguila, José Gabriel Revelo 27 Llore, María Clelia Reascos Revelo, María Magdalena Rodríguez Barcenes, José Miguel
    [Show full text]
  • Donziger Brief
    Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1850 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 81 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHEVRON CORPORATION, Case No. 11-CV-0691 (LAK) Plaintiffs, v. STEVEN DONZIGER, et al., Defendants. POST-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANTS STEVEN DONZIGER, THE LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN R. DONZIGER AND DONZIGER & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Richard H. Friedman Friedman | Rubin 1126 Highland Avenue Bremerton, WA 98337 Tel: (360) 782-4300 Fax: (360) 782-4358 Zoe Littlepage Littlepage Booth 2043A West Main Houston, TX 77098 Tel: (713) 529-8000 Fax: (713) 529-8044 Steven R. Donziger 245 W. 104th Street, #7D New York, NY 10025 Tel: (212) 570-4499 Fax: (212) 409-8628 December 23, 2013 Attorneys for Steven R. Donziger, Law Offices of Steven R. Donziger and Donziger & Associates, PLLC Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1850 Filed 12/23/13 Page 2 of 81 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Authorities ........................................................................................................................ ii Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1 Statement..........................................................................................................................................7 A. For eighteen years, Ecuadorian rainforest communities seek—and ultimately win—a judgment holding Chevron responsible for dumping billions of gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon ...............................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • Claimants' Memorial on the Merits
    IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER THE RULES OF THE UNITED NATIONS COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW ________________________________________________________________________ CHEVRON CORPORATION and TEXACO PETROLEUM COMPANY, CLAIMANTS, v. THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, RESPONDENT. ________________________________________________________________________ CLAIMANTS’ MEMORIAL ON THE MERITS ________________________________________________________________________ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND........................................................................................... 12 A. TexPet’s Operations in Ecuador ........................................................................... 12 1. The TexPet-Petroecuador Consortium...................................................... 12 2. Ecuador’s Control over the Consortium ................................................... 15 3. The Consortium’s Operations................................................................... 17 4. TexPet’s Operations Complied with Then-Prevailing Industry Standards................................................................................................... 20 5. The Government Required TexPet to Build Public Infrastructure ........... 23 B. Post-Consortium Negotiations and Environmental Audits................................... 26 1. HBT AGRA’s Audit ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter Demanding an End to Unprecedented House Arrest Of
    OPEN LETTER DEMANDING AN END TO UNPRECEDENTED HOUSE ARREST OF HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY STEVEN DONZIGER AND A CALL TO THE INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMUNITY TO #MAKECHEVRONCLEANUP “ALMOST TWENTY YEARS AGO, the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. All governments made the strong commitment to prioritise the security and protection of Human Rights Defenders, recognizing the right of all individuals and organisations to peacefully defend human rights. Yet, the world seems less and less safe for those who stand up for human dignity.” – Michael Forst, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders1 As members of the international legal community, including human rights, environmental rights, and indigenous peoples’ rights organizations, we must protect human rights defenders. We are outraged by the attack on the rule of law evidenced in the arbitrary detention of human rights attorney, Steven Donziger. Thanks to corporate-friendly federal Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, who openly stated his pro-corporate bias in a case involving a multinational corporation,2 a dangerous precedent is being set chilling legal representation. In the “Land of the Free,” Donziger has now spent more than 9 months under unprecedented house arrest in retaliation for his work on behalf of indigenous people of the Ecuadorian Amazon against oil giant, Chevron, in one of the most important corporate accountability and human rights cases of our time. In 1993, U.S. human rights attorney, Steven Donziger, became part of the legal team for 30,000 indigenous peoples and affected campesinos in the Ecuadorian Amazon seeking justice from the environmental damage and ongoing health crisis caused by oil company Texaco, for deliberately polluting the Amazon Rainforest.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Letter to the New York Court of Appeals October 21, 2020 Chief
    Open Letter to the New York Court of Appeals October 21, 2020 Chief Judge Janet DiFiore Judge Jenny Rivera Judge Leslie Stein Judge Eugene M. Fahey Judge Michael J. Garcia Judge Rowan D. Wilson Judge Paul Feinman New York Court of Appeals 20 Eagle St Albany, NY 12207 Re: Steven R. Donziger’s Motion for Permission to Appeal his Disbarment Dear Judges of the New York Court of Appeals, We, law students pursuing careers in the public interest, write to support Steven Donziger’s motion for permission to appeal his disbarment by the Appellate Division, First Department. In particular, we are disturbed that the First Department applied collateral estoppel to deprive Mr. Donziger of an opportunity to challenge the grounds for his disbarment. We urge the Court of Appeals to end this practice. Future public interest lawyers must be able to expect fair proceedings in front of the bar if they are forced to defend themselves against the retaliatory tactics that Mr. Donziger has faced. Between 1993 and 2011, the American attorney Steven Donziger represented indigenous Ecuadorians in a class action lawsuit.1 The Ecuadorians hoped to hold Chevron accountable for severely damaging their region of the Amazon. Mr. Donziger succeeded in obtaining a $9.5 billion judgement for his clients, which Ecuador’s highest court affirmed unanimously. However, shortly before the Ecuadorian trial court issued its judgment, Chevron commenced a civil RICO action against Mr. Donziger in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The oil giant accused Mr. Donziger of bribing an Ecuadorian judge to issue a ghost- written decision in favor of his clients.
    [Show full text]