Watch the video below, it is quite something. Amazing that they were stupid enough to tape themselves saying this much less turn it into a documentary!
UPDATE: The legal pleading has been added, link below, quite a read.
————-
Excerpt From Wizbang: Environmental Scientist Caught Agreeing To Ignore Her Own Data, Make Up New Claims
Dr. Ann Maest is a managing scientist at Straus Consulting, and she’s the go to expert on all things groundwater. In the press release announcing her reappointment to the National Academy of Sciences, they mention that she is focused on the environmental effects of mining and petroleum extraction and production, and, more recently, on the effects of climate change on water quality.
Maest is in high demand as an expert for those looking to stop oil and mineral exploration. She’s also heavily used by the federal government, even though after new details about her past work are coming to light as a result of a lawsuit. From The New York Times:
An environmental consulting firm named as a defendant in a racketeering suit filed by Chevron Corp. over a landmark pollution lawsuit in Ecuador is continuing to work on another blockbuster case: the Deepwater Horizon oil spill investigation.
Boulder, Colo.-based Stratus Consulting, a long-term contractor with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal agencies, is gathering and analyzing data concerning the Gulf of Mexico spill.
Chevron is suing those behind the Ecuadorian case including: the lead attorney Steven Donziger; Stratus Consulting; and Maest. As part of their lawsuit, Chevron obtained through discovery, outtakes from a documentary called “Crude” that show Donziger and Maest colluding ignore their own findings and make up some new unsubstantiated claims. Watch this:
from the YouTube description:
The following is an outtake from Joe Berlinger’s movie Crude. At the March 4, 2007, lunch meeting between plaintiffs’ lead U.S. lawyer Steven Donziger and plaintiffs’ U.S. consultants Charles Champ, Ann Maest and Richard Kamp, they reveal the truth about plaintiffs’ lack of evidence and their intent to manipulate the Ecuadorian court. Maest tells Donziger that they need evidence of groundwater contamination, because plaintiffs did not submit any. Maest admits that, “Right now all the reports are saying it’s just at the pits and the stations, and nothing has spread anywhere at all.” Donziger responds, “Hold on a second, you know, 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.” Donziger continues, “Because at the end of the day, this is all for the court just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and bulls**t. It really is. We have enough, to get money, to win.” View more outtakes at YouTube.com/TexacoEcuador. For more information about the Ecuador lawsuit, visit Chevron.com/Ecuador
Read the whole thing at Wizbang: Environmental Scientist Caught Agreeing To Ignore Her Own Data, Make Up New Claims
Here’s the legal pleading, quite a read h/t to Steve
http://www.chevron.com/documents/pdf/ecuador/StampedComplaint.pdf
“Boulder, Colo.-based Stratus Consulting, a long-term contractor with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other federal agencies,</b?
So the scumbags are at the federal trough while giving us this kind of “science” in return. Why am I not really surprised? Always shocked but no longer surprised here……
Pages starting about 140 to around 160.
Wire fraud, ect. all the eliments covered and it names each of the individualy.
Trouble flowing from this case if they win will sink Greenpeace and Earth First.
A quick clarification: Dr. Maest is not a *member* of the National Academy of Sciences. Rather, she’s an appointee who serves on an expert committee convened by the NAS. I recognize that the headline clearly says “appointee”. Nonetheless, it might be good to clarify the difference.
The video is egregious, but the Statement of Claim is like 1000 nailguns working on the coffin.
These people are going down, big time. And so they should.
They are crooks and bloodsuckers. It is extortion on a grand scale. To top it off, they claim to be morally virtuous and doing it to save us all and the planet.
Just one head of the Hydra, however.
I genuinely hope that Chevron nail these people and they go to prison for a long long time. It may make others in similar scams take notice.
Donziger has been driven out of the litigation.
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/New_York/News/2011/12_-_December/Can_Ecuadorean_plaintiffs_keep_funding_case_against_Chevron_/
And the scary thing is that they would have gotten away with it had it not been for their own vanity in wanting to have their exploits enshrined in a documentary and an anal retentive documentarian who kept all of the extra footage.
It once again goes back to the Goodfellas syndrome. They were too steeped in this criminal activity that is didn’t seem abnormal anymore, so why not let the cameras roll?
True, but it won’t really matter, since the rest of her career is likely to consist of asking customers “Do you want fries with that?” 😀
Maybe it was noted in a previous post and I missed it, but this fraud and the existence of the outtakes was exposed by the Business and Media Institute in August of 2010. See http://www.mrc.org/bmi/articles/2010/Court_Filings_Show__Minutes_Hero_Donziger_Colluded_with_Ecuadoran_Government_to_Defraud_Chevron.html
The lawyer aspects of this are quite appalling. The only thing that saves her slightly in the least is that this condemning material was taken in a foreign country. But that is for the time being. The problem now is that if she has any testimony at all in any cases against anyone in the past or present, any material that used to be “priveledged” including attourney/client papers is now fully open to discovery and to top that off all of her testimony is going to be (possibly) thrown out “as fruit from the poisoned well” so to speak.
Granted, the way this works is slow and tedious, but the way Conoco put the RICO charges into place really says wonders about where they are going. As I said, the discovery alone will work wonders. These law firms involved obviously now have a choice that is not very good. They can go on a “paper shredding mission” only to lose the case anyway and probably suffer the same consequences and take their chances that way.
Or they can turn it all over and hope their law firm does not suffer. Which is probably the best bet for the law firm, but the “cause” as it is will be in serious trouble. In other words, this is serious.
As boring as the rest of that probably is, the most interesting aspect of this case is going to be the discovery aspect. As Conoco can probably argue that if one witness was compromised (which will probably be proven in discovery) that others will have been too (which will result in more discovery) and as such the dominos could start falling on a number of cases and a number of activists/scientists.
This indeed could be a break worth following. But don’t hold your breath quite yet. If the lawyers were coaching the witnesses or otherwise involved, they would also be part of RICO and could likewise be held liable under that and as such they could also likewise be held accountable and as such the other alternative of missing papers is likely in that case.
I fully expect the discovery procedure in this case to be fraught with lots of issues and “lost documents.” But this is one of those cases when you start to make in-roads and where the person has the money and the motivation to get to the heart of it where the ending is all but pre-determined. It might not end all activism or AGW at all, but it might put some of the more vile ones away in the end, but do not expect it immediatly. Courts are notoriously slow in the first place anyway…and in this case, if the lawyers are part of the mess, well expect lots of time to get to the bottom of it.
Kevin O’Neill says:
December 13, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Actually he didn’t suggest making anything up; he said take the existing *known* contamination and extrapolate per theory to 300 meters taking into account the topographical changes. Not quite as bad as using cherry-picking 1998 as the starting point for global temperature graph or comparison.
Right, just like “extrapolating” away the MWP and the LIA via the shaft of the Hockey Stick wasn’t making things up, eh? But this time even when real data would be available.
Btw, showing the actual record of non-warming from 1998 is not “extrapolating”. But would it be much of a stretch to wonder why you, Donziger, Maest, Obama, Climate Science, Enc., are so opposed to fact , logic, ethics, normal word meanings, and real science?
I have 2 memories on this case not mentioned in the posts i read. I remember it to not have an American team involved on the benefits of the proceeds of a settlement. i was wrong. These extortionists are clearly driving this and it makes sense.
I also remember the contamination came after the property rights were long ago transferred to the local producer. How could they pollute on properties they sold many years ago? This RICO mess I am very familiar with Chevron has much more than a case and they can get trebble damages in some states. I have purchased so much insurance over the years and can’t picture them having an extortion case settlement and the consultants being covered.
My estimate is the case will take over 3 years and cost the extortionists a million a year to defend.
Having used consulting experts in my own legal battles when I worked for the City of Dallas, the above video is one of the things I used to worry about the other side doing when they were trying to make their case. One also has to be very careful in one’s own use of consultants not to get caught up in a form of confirmation bias or to not steer an expert too far.
That the so-called “independent” experts were being used or manipulated by the attorneys or the retained consultant to produce pre-conceived conclusions in this instance is pretty apparent. If that is not witness tampering, I don’t know what is. I have never seen anything quite this flagrant in front of the cameras. A willingness to try to “extrapolate” data that is not there is pretty unethical as well as illegal when done in the judicial process. Now, this consultant Maest doesn’t appear to be agreeing to do this in the clip shown, but it sure looks like she participated in the extrapolation attempt based upon the subsequent clips I’ve seen.
RICO is a pretty extraordinary statute; this might not be the case that American courts take in order to determine whether RICO applies to this kind of activity. But if I were representing Chevron, I’d sure be trying to apply RICO, too. And James Sexton: yes, RICO has a civil component to it as well as a criminal one. Given the current administration, good luck getting anyone in the Justice Department to prosecute under RICO.
Shocked. Shocked I tell you.
Why exactly are we surprised that, given a video of the inner workings of the “environmental movement”, some conclude that this is a “one off” event and not the core activity of a multi billion dollar parasite industry? Hands up everyone who thinks that this doesn’t go on at every strategy meeting of “big green” worldwide?
OK – I have a business plan. Fund my crooked case against some entity with assets. I’ll use your funding to buy the “right answers” in the “right court” using the “right experts” and when we win the case your 10 million investment will be worth 10 billion – do we have a deal? Beats working for a living.
This idea that the “environmental movement” is about saving Whales simply demonstrates the value of a good PR company. It is just another a parasitic industry… Find a target, buy “an expert” to figure out some novel statistical bullshit that correlates A with B and ride the gravy train all the way into the next robbery.
I’m no legal expert but it seems that Chevron have chosen the right path here in using RICO. My understanding is that a guilty verdict applies to anyone in the chain who helped make the original case happen – on a “joint and several liability” basis. Pop Corn at the ready boys and girls.
Shame more of big green doesn’t capture its strategy meetings on video. We could rid ourselves of these parasites in short order.
Here we have a small (we think) group of scammers using bought and paid for “science” in order to loot a few tens of billions from Chevron. We have a much larger group of scammers using the same technique to rob “annexe 1” countries of several Trillion dollars. Now that would be a RICO case to remember.
Then again the UN would never be stupid enough to commit a strategy meeting to paper let alone video. And our favourite “scientists” will have deleted any communications that may harm “the cause”.
I feel sorry for those scientists who still see “science” as a “pure” pursuit. You are, as a profession, just a “midges” away from being hung from the same tree as Wall St swindlers.
At least with Wall Street Swindlers you expect nothing less … shame that given a choice between my beloved “science” and “Wall Street robbers” I would now have to think long and hard before voting for one or the other.
Vitamins in cigarette smoke, hide the decline, fudge your water analysis results… science for sale..get your witness…cheapest witnesses in town … name your conclusions…best prices … more than a thousand “experts” on call…
Man walking on the Moon was probably the most memorable event in my childhood. Where, in forty years, did science go so wrong? As with many in that era I grasped the “future through science and technology” with both hands. How could I know that by 2011 I would gladly see “scientists” hanging from the same tree as Wall Street swindlers. At least they will get a tree though… “environmental” NGO’s will be dealt with “Cambodian style” in my revolution.
I once was in a trial where the judge in giving instructions to the jurors said that they should not believe what the lawyers tell them because they are all born story tellers.
It’s been alluded to above, but Maest is with STRATUS Consulting, not STRAUS Consulting.
(At least I don’t know any of those Stratus players)
What disgusting crap!
Will Andy Revkin take this up? One of the Pielke’s? ……Lady in Red
To quote Blackadder: “The criminal’s vanity always makes them make one tiny but fatal mistake. Theirs was to have their entire conspiracy printed and published in plain manuscript.“
What I don’t get it is why Chevron didn’t fight this in the court at the time. Cross examination of the expert witness is vital to call into question the evidence being presented to the court. Chevron could have made it’s own investigations into the environmental effects of the spill, hired their own experts and examined the plaintiff’s evidence to call out the falsehoods. Half of a successful court case is catching inadmissible evidence and discrediting experts.
They’re a multinational, they have to money to pay for it. Also they probably should have been monitoring the effects of the spill already because, you know, they spilled a whole lot of oil.
Discovery is recovery. GK
OK. I read the entire complaint (less the Appendices) — 165 pages of legalese which could probably be clearly summarized in 20 pages or less. The basic claim is Steven Donziger filed a completely meritless (indeed fraudulent) action in Ecuador against Chevron, as a successor to Texaco, which engaged in oil drilling there (as “TexPet”) together with the Ecuadoran state oil company beginning in 1964 and continuing until 1992, when Petroecuador became the sole owner of all the oil fields and other assets, and sole operator. The complaint alleges that far more environmental damage has been done by Petroecuador operations since 1992 than in all the prior years since 1964 when TexPet was the operating partner.
In late 1994, TexPet, Ecuador and Petroecuador reached a Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) regarding the identification and remediation of any environmental damage caused by oil operations while TexPet was the operating partner. Financial responsibility was to be shared by TexPet and Petroecuador, in proportion to their ownership percentages. In 1995 a settlement agreement was reached which detailed all the remediation work and other compensation due, at the conclusion of which TexPet was to be released from any further obligation or responsibility. The remediation was completed in 1998 by a contractor selected by TexPet from a list of acceptable firms supplied by Ecuador, and the parties (TexPet, Petroecuador and Ecuador) executed the “Final Release” in September, 1998. According to the MOU, this was the end of any TexPet obligation.
The complaint alleges the Donziger and others colluded with Ecuadoran government officials, court officials and others to create a sham proceeding in the Ecuador courts, promising them a share of any settlement. Donziger and the other RICO defendants arranged for the appointment of a supposedly “independent” consultant whose report to the court was written entirely by Donziger et. al.
To support this action, Donziger and others made repeated false assertions denying any involvement in the preparation of the supposedly independent report. They enlisted political pressure groups including the Rainforest Action Network, Amazon Watch, and an Ecuadoran organization called “The Front” to stage demonstrations and engage in other “direct actions”. They also colluded with Ecuadoran government officials, including the Attorney General, to bring fraud charges against the TexPet attorneys in Ecuador who had worked on the 1994 MOU and the 1998 Final Release, as a pretext for overturning the 1998 release and re-asserting TexPet (now Chevron’s) liability.
Most of the complaint is a long list (repeated several times) of all the fraudulent activities carried out by the defendants, including multiple charges of perjury, knowingly submitting false court filings and other documents, etc.
Chevron is making 9 claims for relief. On two claims they are asking for treble damages plus reasonable attorneys fees. On the other seven they are asking for “general damages according to proof at trial”, plus appropriate injunctive relief. They are also asking the court to declare the judgement of the Ecuadoran court ($27 Billion) unenforceable due to fraud, conspiracy, perjury, etc., etc.
As I have stated before, I am not an attorney. The complaint is dated April, 2011 and I do not know what if any court sessions have followed this filing, but if Chevron can support the claims, I would be surprised if defendants Donziger et., al did not find themselves long-term residents of Club Fed. They certainly should.
All of this should sound familiar to WUWT readers following the AGW claims.
Those of you searching for the “next” minute to gauge her response are missing the point. The fact that this guy feels confident enough to concoct this story in front of her says enough. Where is her morale outrage. Where are her ethics?
Alan Watt says:
December 14, 2011 at 8:20 pm
OK. I read the entire complaint….
____________________________________
Thanks for the excellent summary.
@Lee
Exactly!! What honest, ethical professional, or human being, never mind a SCIENTIST, could sit there complacently listening to the trial lawyer explain how they can just make up the data based upon a useful “plaintiff’s theory” of the case, and not be appalled and outraged?
The ONLY appropriate response for her was to say immediately “we cannot say that because it would be unethical, dishonest, untrue….”
3×2 says:
December 14, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Shocked. Shocked I tell you.
Why exactly are we surprised….
____________________________
I am not. I can recall a case several years ago where EPA “Scientists” were caught falsifying reports so land owners lost the use of their land. All the scientists received was a lateral shift to a different department.
The blasted “Spotted owl” that shut down a whole industry is another example that comes to mind. It is a minor variation of a very common bird. Sort of like calling red haired humans “endangered”
Here is a report of the EPA falsifying data: http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
The problem is “Post Normal Science” where the people believe reality is actually fluid and not concrete and objective. When some one has that perspective then the “CAUSE” is the only important matter and “science” is a tool that can be bent to serve the “CAUSE
This is one of the reasons why arguing with a warmist does not work. To them there is no such thing as objective science.
I read the whole thing. I reads like a great detective story. Couldn’t put it down. Humor, Pathos Hubris. The parallels with Climategate are stunning.