SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (134924)6/15/2010 9:55:39 AM
From: Dennis Roth2 Recommendations  Respond to of 206202
 
Whistleblower Testifies Before Ecuador's Prosecutor General About Chevron's Dirty Tricks
chevroninecuador.com

excerpt:

According to Escobar, in June 2009, Borja had bragged to him that he had arranged "the biggest business deal of his life" and that he would "take down the lawsuit" and that he had received "a ton of money." Less than two months later, Chevron released videos secretly taped by Diego Borja that the company claimed exposed corruption implicating the judge presiding over the trial. Soon, the phony corruption scandal –– concocted by Diego Borja along with an American convicted felon and drug trafficker named Wayne Hansen –– began to unravel. And Escobar, disgusted, began to record his conversations with his friend, Chevron's dirty tricks guy.

So, over several months last year, Escobar made more than six hours of tape recordings of his conversations with Diego Borja in which Borja confesses that Chevron “cooked” evidence in the trial and that Borja could ensure a victory by the Amazon communities if Chevron failed to pay him what he was promised for concocting the phony corruption scandal to smear the Ecuadorean courts.

At today’s press conference, Santiago Escobar said that he testified before Ecuador's Prosecutor General that Borja admitted that he tampered with evidence, switching out contaminated samples for samples free of contamination before submitting them to the testing lab. He or his wife Sara Portilla –– who worked for the U.S. lab that Chevron used for testing –– would then submit the samples and test results to the court.

Expanding on previously released evidence to the reporters, Mr. Escobar said, "For example, one time, in his office, where the 'independent laboratories' operated that did the analysis of soil samples that are the evidence that supposedly 'vindicates' Chevron, he told me, 'look, we didn't take these samples from the contaminated sites, we took them from between 10-30 kilometers away from there.'"

Escobar continued, "In this office, there were three tables and some big industrial refrigerators where they kept the samples... they themselves got the insurance, they themselves sent the samples by DHL to the United States, they did everything. So, apparently, the laboratory, which is not independent because it was run by his wife, supports and justifies the remediation, and that the reason people are dying is because of contamination."

Escobar had previously released recordings and saved MSN chats of Borja bragging about how he set up at least four 'front' companies to manage Chevron's testing of contamination samples during the trial, how his wife worked for a U.S.-based lab that Chevron used for testing samples, how he lied to gain entry to the lab where the plaintiffs were testing their samples with his Florida-based Chevron boss (the company's Latin America offices are based in Coral Gables), and how Chevron is paying him the equivalent of $10,000 U.S. per month in Ecuador, and paying the rent on a $6,000/month house in a gated community minutes from Chevron headquarters in San Ramon, CA, where he isn't subject to a subpoena from the court in Ecuador hearing the case against Chevron.



To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (134924)11/24/2011 10:48:37 AM
From: DewDiligence_on_SI3 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 206202
 
>CHEVRON has always believed safety, good environmental practices and adherence to the law is a strong competitive advantage.<

Does this viewpoint still apply?