The truth about Chevron is they are actually environmentally sound and tend to be scapegoated by environmentalists who don't know the facts as well as those who pose as "environmentalists" who are in fact their competitors.
For example, this piece in the San Francisco Sentinel:
GOLDMAN ENVIRONMENTAL PRIZE COMMITTEE CONNED BY AMERICAN LAW FIRM
BY PAT MURPHY - San Francisco Sentinel, April 13, 2008
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=11896
The Goldman Environmental Prize Committee is a victim of a con job by those seeking to extort money from Chevron, according to a Chevron spokesman.
He spoke at length with the Sentinel detailing that allegation.
"Well, these guys are nothing more than environmental actors running a con on the Goldmans and the media," Chevron spokesman Kent Robertson responded to the Sentinel.
CASE THROWN OUT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS
"The only thing green they're interested in is money," continued Robertson.
"The case has been tried since 1993 in a number of jurisdictions."
FEDERAL JUDGE REBUKES ATTORNEYS FOR POSSIBLE MISCONDUCT
In granting Chevron's motion for summary judgment and to dismiss as a sanction for fraud on the court, San Francisco Federal Judge Joseph Alsup delivered a sharp rebuke to the lawyers who brought the complaints against Chevron.
"This is not the first evidence of possible misconduct by plaintiffs' counsel in this case," wrote Alsup.
"It is clear to the Court that this case was manufactured by plaintiffs' counsel for reasons other than to seek a recovery on these plaintiffs' behalf. This litigation is likely a smaller piece of some larger scheme against defendants."
Robertson noted that plaintiff attorneys were fined for false cancer claims.
"Most recently, it was in the San Francisco Federal Circuit — it was thrown out there after the judge found that the lawyers involved… had manufactured evidence and false cancer claims — the judge saw it for what it was worth, threw it out, fined the lawyers and sanctioned them.
SWORN DEPOSITIONS ACKNOWLEDGE FABRICATED CANCER CLAIMS
Excerpts of Deposition of Gloria Chamba:
Q: In October 2002 did any of the doctors tell you that your son had been diagnosed with leukemia?
A: No.
Q: Has any doctor ever told you that your son has been diagnosed with leukemia?
A: Absolutely not.
Q: Paragraph 12 of the complaint says that "In October 2002 Jane Gloria Chamba's son who was seven years old was diagnosed with leukemia." Did you know that (indicating)? . . .
A: No.
Q: That's false, isn't it?
A: Yes, it's false.
Q: Your son was not diagnosed with leukemia in October 2002, was he?
A: No.
Q: And your son has never been diagnosed with any type of cancer, has he?
A: No.
Q: So when the complaint says that "Gloria Chamba's son contracted cancer because of his exposure to those toxins," that's false, isn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: And when the complaint says that "Gloria Chamba provides care to her son as he slowly deteriorates from his cancer," that's false, isn't it?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you ever authorize your lawyers to sue Texaco, claiming that your son has leukemia?
A: No.
Q: Did your lawyers ever tell you that they were going to sue Texaco, claiming that your son was diagnosed with leukemia?
A: No.
Q: Did Ms. Teresa [plaintiffs' paralegal] ever ask you whether your son had been diagnosed with leukemia?
A: No.
Q: Did Ms. Teresa ever ask you whether your son had been diagnosed with any cancer?
A: No.
Excerpts of Deposition of Luisa Gonzales:
Q: At the time you filed the complaint against Texaco in April 2006, did you know that you had not been diagnosed with breast cancer?
A: Yes.
Q: You knew that it was false that you claimed to have breast cancer; right?
A: Yes.
Q: And so you made up a false claim about having breast cancer, didn't you?
A: At that time, yes.
Q: Did you think it would help your case if you sued, claiming to have breast cancer, when you had not been diagnosed yet?
A: Yes.
Q: Is that why you did it?
A: Yes.
Q: Were you hoping that Texaco would pay you if you claimed to have cancer?
A: Yes.
PETROECUADOR THE REAL POLLUTER
"We're also drawing attention to the real polluter in this case, and that's a company called Petroecuador.
"It is owned by the government of Ecuador," stated Robertson.
"It's been the sole operator of the oil fields in Ecuador for seventeen years.
"The company has a horrendous environmental track record, one would say that they readily admit that they can do better, that they have clean-up obligations.
"The strange thing here, especially when you consider environmental winners, that whenever Petroecuador has tried to clean-up their environmental mess, these guys have stood in the way and say, 'Don't do it; it hurts our case.' "
CASE REALLY ABOUT MONEY
"But this case is really about money," Robertson told the Sentinel.
"And if you follow the money it goes back to Philadelphia.
"There's a client's firm there called Kohn and Swift.
"They have been the money behind this lawsuit since 1993.
"This is purely an investment for them — they think that they can extort a settlement out of Chevron and that they can cash in.
"When this case was first brought in New York it was brought by a gentleman of Bonifaz.
"His case was the one that was thrown out of San Francisco.
"He was fined.
"He was sanctioned.
"They have been his financial patron ever since.
"If there's really a lot of substance to their case, why all the PR antics in the United States — this case is being tried in Ecuador.
"They suggest they've got a winner of a case, but they spend more time trying this case in the court of public opinion.
"Again, it's all about extortion — they're trying to get something that they don't deserve from Chevron."
CHEVRON HAS NEVER OPERATED IN ECQUADOR
"Chevron has never operated in Ecuador, never," reported Robertson.
"When we bought Texaco in 2001, we inherited this.
"When Texaco Petroleum had operated in Ecuador, it did so in a joint venture with Petroecuador which is a government owned oil company.
"When Texaco left, they performed an environmental remediation that was signed-off by the government — they were released from further liability.
"And Petroecuador has continued to operate for the last seventeen years.
"And they've had an abysmal track record.
"They are blaming Chevron for Petroecuador's record of seventeen years of spills and inaction."
BLAMING CHEVRON A CON
"We believe we're a world class operator.
"We're very transparent in terms of our performance — we believe our record speaks for itself.
"This is the only place on the planet where we're facing litigation such as this.
"We've never operated there.
"Texaco left seventeen years ago.
"It left with the blessing of government; meanwhile, Chevron operates in 180 countries."
JUDGE HAS YET TO ISSUE RULING
"It wasn't a judgement — the (media cited) report is a recommendation to the judge.
"The judge has yet to even see it.
"The important thing to know about that report is that it was funded purely by the plaintiffs.
"The gentleman who wrote it is a former technician of the plaintiffs.
"The support team that prepared the report is affiliated with the environmental group that is the identified financial beneficiary of any settlement or ruling.
"We think that when that report is subjected to any sort of legitimate scrutiny, it too will be shown or what it is worth."
PEOPLE SUFFERING
"It's shameful that so much time and so much effort has been dedicated to trying to blame this on Chevron," Robertson told the Sentinel.
"This is nothing more than a con.
"People are pointing to Petreoecuador's mess, blaming it on Chevron, and the environment and the people in Ecuador are suffering."
Plaintiff attorneys will hold a 10:00 a.m. press conference Monday to discuss the litigation, at the Fairmont Hotel, Garden Room, Lobby Level, 950 Mason Street, San Francisco.
The 2008 Goldman Environmental Prize Ceremony will take place Monday at 5:00 p.m. at the San Francisco Opera House, 301 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco.
