Comments on: New Lago Agrio Feature: Sleaziest PR Of The Week

By: Lago Agrio: Supreme Court Denies Donziger’s Petition For Cert. | Letters Blogatory

Tue, 20 Jun 2017 11:15:15 +0000

[…] United States. Judge Kaplan’s injunction will remain in place. Although I’ve sometimes criticized the PR coming from Donziger and his allies, I have to say I like his chutzpadik statement following […]

By: Sleaziest PR of the Week: Episode Two | Letters Blogatory

Sleaziest PR of the Week: Episode Two | Letters Blogatory — Mon, 01 Dec 2014 18:28:14 +0000

[…] a while ago I took the LAPs to task for what I thought was an unwarranted attack on the NOW Legal Defense Fund. This time, it is […]

By: Ted Folkman

Ted Folkman — Thu, 23 Oct 2014 10:41:53 +0000

The anonymous team that writes The Chevron Pit blog, which may or may not include Hinton Communications or Steven Donziger himself, has doubled down on this, writing: "It is a requirement under the federal rules that any ties to a party in a litigation be disclosed in the first footnote of an amicus brief by a supposedly independent entity." This misstates the rule. Under FRAP 29(c)(5), the obligation is to disclose whether a party or its counsel wrote the brief in whole or in part, and whether a party or its counsel "contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief." There is no requirement to disclose "any ties to a party," such as the board memberships The Chevron Pit has now focused on. The CP did get one thing right, though: under Local Rule 29.1, the disclosure does have to appear in the first footnote. I suppose a warning from Letters Blogatory to "chill" is not really going to chasten anyone, but still!

By: Karen Hinton

Karen Hinton — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:53:10 +0000

And, Elaine Wood once worked for Kroll, who has been on Chevron’s payroll for years and has been its main spy agent in Ecuador. See this link:

A Spy In The Jungle:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/08/a-spy-in-the-jungle/60770/

By: Karen Hinton

Karen Hinton — Tue, 21 Oct 2014 15:36:37 +0000

Ted,

“….it wouldn’t be surprising if someone on Chevron’s side made Legal Momentum aware of the case and asked if it would be interested in submitting an amicus brief.” Really?

This is how it went down.

Elaine Wood, who wrote the brief and is the elected Chair of Legal Momentum’s Board, works for Alvarez & Marsal, where she specializes in “investigations relating to asset searches, corporate contests and multinational litigation.” See bio and press release:

http://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/elaine-wood

https://www.legalmomentum.org/press/g-elaine-wood-elected-chair-legal-momentum-board-directors-laura-wilkinson-elected-first-vice

At least two Alvarez employees list Chevron as a client:

http://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/jeff-paradowski

http://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/marc-morrison

At least two once worked for Chevron and now work for Alvarez in Houston:

http://www.alvarezandmarsal.com/wendy-hallmark

https://www.linkedin.com/in/kellymclachlan

You used the word “corruption,” we didn’t. We believe Legal Momentum should have disclosed to the court its and Wood’s connections to Chevron, as well as the financial contributions.

Legal Momentum has every right to submit an amicus on behalf of Chevron, if that is how NOW and Legal Momentum want to spend their resources and time — fighting on behalf of a company whose predecessor polluted the Ecuador rainforest and contributed to a number of diseases and death among the indigenous and poor villagers in the area.

We have every right to point out the connections, both in terms of relationships and financial contributions.

Unlike the 17 environmental and human rights groups that filed an amicus on the Ecuadorians’ behalf and have advocated on behalf of environmental issues in the Amazon and other places, Legal Momentum has not uttered a public word about RICO — in the context of the Ecuadorians’ case — during two years of RICO-related actions in Judge Kaplan’s courtroom. And Chevron, to be kind, has never made a woman’s right to choose a policy priority.

To NOT disclose is my definition of sleazy.