Chevron became a target for litigation after it took over Texaco in 2001. Farmers and tribe members claim Texaco damaged parts of the jungle with faulty drilling practices in the 1970’s and 1980’s. In response, Chevron officials have said that Texaco properly re-mediated the areas where it had operations. Moreover, the company has produced reams of evidence that demonstrate plaintiff attorneys have been operating in collusion with Ecuador’s judiciary to produce fraudulent rulings. Chevron has also sought international legal recourse with considerable success.

Under the U.S.-Ecuador Bilateral Investment Agreement Treaty, a Hague Tribunal has ordered Ecuador to suspend enforcement of the ruling pending further investigation. Several federal judges in the U.S. have also ruled in the company’s favor. Chevron has also submitted a letter to Galo Chiriboga, Ecuador’s prosecutor general that documents the fraud and corruption allegations. The plaintiffs’ representatives including Steven Donziger, Pablo Fajardo, Juan Pablo  Saenz, Julio Priento and Luis Yanza worked in covert partnership with Judge Zambrano to craft a ruling  that would be favorable to their case, according to the letter.

Chevron’s evidence against the Ecuadorian court includes the following:

• “The judgment copies exact language from a June 2009 email that Fajardo sent to Donziger, Sáenz and Prieto. The body of the email includes a short memo from a not-yet identified third party and a “transcri[ption]” of a published Ecuadorian court opinion. That transcription contains numerous mistakes not found in the published court opinion itself. The judgment repeats all of these mistakes, exactly, as well as a citation error Fajardo made in his email.”

• “The judgment also refers to several test samples by names that are not found in the record, but rather in private spreadsheets created by the plaintiffs, which contain information from the plaintiffs’ own database. The judgment replicates errors contained in the plaintiffs’ database and replicates errors in the database attributing data to the wrong experts and confuses measurement units.”

• “The judgment contains language from a private memorandum authored by plaintiffs’ attorney Juan Pablo Sáenz and other members of plaintiffs’ legal team around November 2007 regarding a Chevron subsidiary’s merger with Texaco.  No fewer than 15 instances, significant portions of the Sáenz memorandum, including entire sentences, appear verbatim or nearly verbatim in the judgment.”

Chevron has released a statement in response to the latest ruling out of Ecuador: “The Lago Agrio judgment was procured through a corrupt and fraudulent scheme, much of which was captured on film and memorialized in the plaintiffs’ representatives’ own emails and correspondence. Their misconduct includes fabricating expert reports, manufacturing evidence, bribing and colluding with court officials, waging a campaign of intimidation against judges, and even ghostwriting parts of the verdict itself. Evidence of these crimes has been provided to Ecuador’s courts and prosecutors, but authorities there have taken no corrective actions.”

Chevron’s successful legal efforts to obtain outtakes from the documentary “Crude” also show that U.S. trial attorneys partnered with a court appointed engineer named Richard Cabrera who was charged with making an “objective” assessment of the pollution allegations. Cabrera recommended a damage figure in excess of $27 billion.

The conflicts do not end here.

Kerry Kennedy, the ex-wife of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, has been crusading against Chevron and on behalf of the environment; or so she says.  Court documents reveal that Kennedy was hired as a “public-relations consultant” by the plaintiffs’ legal team. She was paid $50,000 by Donziger, bank statements show and according to news reports, could receive $40 million if the $18 billion judgment ultimately prevails.

The case in Ecuador calls out for large scale tort reform aimed at exposing questionable allegations that ultimately work to the disadvantage of private industry, consumers and taxpayers. With state legislatures going back into session early this year, now would be an opportune time for lawmakers to advance policy changes that reform the civil justice system.

There is a larger story here about the opportunity cost attached to politically correct environmental posturing and genuine ecological concerns. The British Petroleum -”Beyond Petroleum” campaign comes to mind. While it may be comforting to some to view the judicial mischief in Ecuador as an extreme case,  the hard reality is that it shows trial lawyers in their natural state.

The concern for the environment is feigned and not real.

As Net Right Daily has previously reported, Chevron has filed a RICO complaint against the attorneys and consultants attached to the case in Ecuador.

Now Sen. Rob Portman appears ready to “pull a Stupak.”  Under pressure from Democrat Sen. Sherrod Brown, Portman appears ready to cut a deal to confirm former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to a five-year term to head the super-regulatory agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Word on Capitol Hill is that Portman has assured Cordray he has no problems with his nomination and is asking for assurances that his concerns about the Bureau will be address – not in legislation, but in a letter.  Has Portman learned anything from the Stupak incident?  Apparently not.

Unlike Portman, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is taking a principled stand against the creation of a new super regulatory agency and is not shaking in his boots.  Shelby has organized his colleagues who have pledged to oppose the nomination of Cordray or any other nominee unless the Bureau is reformed.  Unlike Portman, apparently, Shelby is smart enough to demand real statutory changes as opposed to “promised” changes.

The CFPB was structured in a way to give huge, and perhaps unconstitutional, power to its Director.  Alan Raul, who served as general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget and associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, described the CFPB’s power as “an independent agency on steroids because Congress essentially exempted the director from any meaningful accountability or strong presidential oversight.”

As structured, the Director is empowered to regulate almost any industry for any reason and if Cordray is confirmed by the full Senate, would be given a five-year term and be removable only by malfeasance.  So if a Republican wins the presidential election, they would enjoy four years of Mr. Cordray regulating the economy, no matter what the president did or said.

Not only should the CFPB be reformed, it should be eliminated.  If Mr. Portman gets weak knees, he will ensure that another government regulatory agency – one with more power than most – will be around for a long time.

Conservatives cannot allow Republican lawmakers to soften or defect on the party’s fundamental principles, or worse, align with those who are diametrically opposed to everything the GOP stands for:  free enterprise, reasonable taxes, limited government and tort reform. Yes, tort reform — and here’s why.

Ignoring tort reform has been devastating to taxpayers, the economy and American business. The U.S. is the most litigious nation in the world; it weakens us competitively and lessens respect for America’s legal system in the eyes of the world. The question isn’t how this critical issue fell from our sightlines to the sidelines. The question is: Why have we permitted trial lawyers to worm their way into our ranks to undermine GOP priorities and the party itself?

In state capitols across the country, there are legislators who proclaim to be conservatives yet block lawsuit reform. A look at just a few states quickly reveals several examples of Republicans who align with personal injury lawyers.

In North Carolina, the legislature recently passed a medical malpractice bill that would allow patients to recover full medical expenses and lost wages and up to $500,000 for noneconomic damages. The bill passed with bipartisan support, yet Republican Representatives N. Leo Daughtry and Grey Mills couldn’t deliver a “yea” vote. Could it be because they both received campaign donations from the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers? Or is it because they are both trial lawyers who have themselves settled millions of dollars in personal injury awards?

Pennsylvania has the dishonor of representation by Republican Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Stewart Greenleaf, who has been a more reliable vote for the trial bar than for tort reform. He has used his powerful committee chairmanship to bottle up, gut and otherwise sabotage efforts to pass meaningful reform. This year he nearly succeeded again when he maneuvered to upend the “Fair Share Act,” a bill to stop the abhorrent practice of targeting defendants based on the depth of their pockets rather than the extent of their liability, with language so watered down as to render the bill useless. Luckily, this gift to the trial bar was exposed and principled Republicans passed real reform.

In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie, the consummate executive and a rising star of the GOP, rode the call for reform to victory. So far, he’s lived up to every word, working hard to bring the state budget back from the verge of collapse. Yet in his own backyard, Republican Assemblyman Jon Bramnick, the Republican Conference leader, boasts about raking in millions of dollars in personal injury damages.

Not surprisingly, Bramnick has been no friend of reform in the Democrat-controlled legislature where reform needs every friend it can get. Instead of rallying around the cause, Bramnick in the past has sponsored wrongful death legislation, a top trial lawyer priority that would have vastly expanded lawsuits and damage awards. Governor Christie should ask Bramnick if he can count on his vote when the governor turns his attention to cleaning up New Jersey’s tort laws, and if not, Governor Christie should campaign against him.

The damage doesn’t stop at undercutting the Republican Party’s policy agenda. One has to consider whether the same allegiances that led these Republicans to work against tort reform have a more insidious effect of aiding and abetting the top funding source of the Democratic Party – trial lawyers. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the American Association for Justice contributed over $2.8 million in 2010; of that amount only $71,000 (2.5%) went to Republicans.

When Republican lawmakers allow more lawsuit bounty for greedy trial lawyers, they put more money in the campaign war chest of the opposition party. They might as well write a check to the Democratic National Committee to defeat good Republicans.

In infiltrating our ranks, the trial bar is creating political sleeper cells that work to the detriment of Republican party goals. The wake-up call isn’t that the trial bar is doing this, it’s that Republicans are letting it happen. It’s time to take a hard look at those in the Republican ranks who choose trial lawyers over conservative principle.

Section 376 of the Act guts the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution by requiring states to forfeit their sovereign immunity rights guaranteed by this Amendment upon receipt of certain government funds.   This opens the door for expensive litigation against states.  Such litigation is a boon for trial lawyers but serves as a millstone around the neck of drowning taxpayers.

The Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution states:

The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

The Supreme Court held in 1890 that this amendment prohibits suits brought against a state by its own citizens as well as from citizens of other states.  (Hans v. Louisiana,134 U.S. 1 (1890)).   Without this doctrine of sovereign immunity, lawsuits brought by private individuals could result in states being forced to pay monetary damages for alleged violations.  People with valid claims against the State would not be the only ones collecting monetary damages.  As those experienced in trial law will attest, settlements are often paid out to those launching lawsuits even when the merits of the case are questionable.  Settling a case in many situations is simply less expensive than paying exorbitant legal defense costs.

This doctrine of sovereign immunity does NOT eliminate recourse by citizens for constitutional rights violations committed by a state government.  Lawsuits may still be brought in an effort to prevent the States from continuing conduct which violates such rights.  Courts can then order the state to alter its actions.  Those who ratified Amendment XI recognized that courts should be in the business providing constitutional guidance rather than transferring public funds to individual litigants.  After all, those public funds are derived ultimately from individual citizens.

So, how does the President’s jobs bill view this important amendment of our Constitution? With disdain.  Section 376 states, in part:

(a) Abrogation of State Immunity- A State shall not be immune under the 11^th Amendment to the Constitution from a suit brought in a Federal court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this act…

(b)(1)(A) WAIVER- A State’s receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign immunity under the 11^th Amendment of the Constitution or otherwise, to a suit brought by an employee or applicant for employment of that program or activity under this Act…

(d) …..Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act,… remedies (including remedies at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies would be available against a non-governmental entity.

Can you hear the chorus of trial attorneys chanting “Pass this bill”?  Democratic politicians will be tempted to listen.  After all, the American Association for Justice (formerly the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) gives millions to political campaigns—97% of these donations go to Democrats.  Forcing states to forfeit their constitutional protections in exchange for federal funds comes at taxpayer expense.  As with the ObamaCare bill, pausing to READ the bill rather the simply passing it would alert Congress and the public to the special interest bonanza represented within.

MoveOn.org and other liberal groups are demanding Republicans play dead and allow Cordray to be confirmed by the Senate for a five year term where he can singlehandedly dictate regulations government nearly any financial transaction in America.

Quietly another interest group is rallying to Cordray’s corner – the securities lawyers.  Daniel Fisher, writing at Forbes.com noticed that despite the constant bashing of the financial industry by Cordray, he is wildly popular with securities class action lawyers and law firms:

Lawyers at Labaton Sucharow contributed $125,000 to various Cordray campaigns between 2008 and 2010, according to Ohio campaign-finance records. Delaware-based Labaton represented Ohio in the AIG case, which it settled last year for $1 billion including something like $90 million in fees (the final fee payout, surprisingly, isn’t on the AG’s website).

Lawyers at crosstown Delaware rivals Grant & Eisenhofer ponied up $25,000 for the Cordray campaign; they represented the state in a lawsuit against Marsh & McClennan that netted the state’s outside lawyers 13% on a $400 million settlement. Other out-of-state law firms that took a keen interest in Cordray’s campaign included Atlanta’s Chitwood Harley, which gave $146,000; Berman deValerio of San Francisco and New York’s Bernstein Litowitz, known for its generosity in seemingly obscure state political races, which gave $50,000.

That’s because Cordray has a scandalous record of “taking money from lawyers who profit from private litigation that often follows closely on the heels of government investigations…” So, the reality is that President Obama’s liberal white-hatted regulator appears to be neck deep in a pay to play scandal with trial lawyers.

Republicans appear ready to hold the line on the nomination with 44 Senators signing a letter refusing to support any nominee until the CFPB is reformed and proper checks and balances are put into place.  But there is a bigger story and a bigger scandal brewing.

America’s trial lawyers are getting ready to make the case against one of their biggest targets in years: Texas Gov. Rick Perry.

Among litigators, there is no presidential candidate who inspires the same level of hatred – and fear – as Perry, an avowed opponent of the plaintiffs’ bar who has presided over several rounds of tort reform as governor.

And if Perry ends up as the Republican nominee for president, deep-pocketed trial lawyers intend to play a central role in the campaign to defeat him.

That’s a potential financial boon to a president who has unsettled trial lawyers with his own rhetorical gestures in the direction of tort reform. A general election pitting Barack Obama against Perry could turn otherwise apathetic trial lawyers into a phalanx of pro-Obama bundlers and super PAC donors.

“If this guy emerges, if he’s a serious candidate, if he doesn’t blow up in the next couple weeks, it’s going to motivate many in the plaintiffs’ bar to dig deeper to support President Obama,” said Sean Coffey, a former securities litigator who ran for attorney general of New York last year. “That will end up driving a lot of money to the Democratic side.”

Some attorneys don’t intend to wait and see how Perry fares in the GOP primaries.

Democratic Houston trial lawyer Steve Mostyn – who, along with his wife, Amber, donated nearly $9 million to Texas candidates and party committees in the 2010 cycle – said he’s in the process of forming “some federal PACs” to take on Perry. That will likely include a federal super PAC that could take in the kind of massive donations that are permitted in Texas.

Read the whole thing here. Considering that Politico is the go-to trade rag of the Democrat party, the moves of the trial bar shouldn’t be seen as a bluff.

On Tuesday the Texas Senate, under the leadership of Lt. Governor David Dewhurst and despite an aggressive lobbying effort by the Trial Lobby, voted unanimously in favor of “loser pays” tort reform legislation. On Wednesday, the House, which had passed a similar bill and was awaiting the Senate’s version, concurred with the Senate bill and passed it through. Gov. Rick Perry has said he will enthusiastically sign the bill into law.

‘Loser pays’ will require plaintiff’s to foot the bill of the winning party’s legal costs if a judge finds the case to be groundless. According to the Wall Street Journal, “This Texas upgrade would build on reforms in 2003 and 2005 that have vastly improved the legal climate in what has not coincidentally become the country’s best state for job creation.”

Negotiations on the bill were highly contentious in recent weeks, mostly due to a well-funded lobbying campaign by the Trial Lobby, which, in Texas, is virtually synonymous with the Democratic Party. Nevertheless, there was a breakthrough over the weekend.

From the Austin Statesman:

By a unanimous vote, the Texas Senate has just given final approval to a once-controversial “loser pays” bill designed to make it easier to get meritless lawsuits tossed out of court.

Passage of the measure had been one of the goals of Gov. Rick Perry and GOP conservative groups. But as recently as a week ago, approval of the new law remained in doubt, as various groups continued to battle over its provisions.

Then, after several days of closed-door talks, a surprise deal was announced Saturday on House Bill 274 that allowed for today’s vote.

Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst deserve credit for shepherding the measure through negotiations. They serve as an example to Governors Nikki Haley of South Carolina and Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania, each of who was elected on a pledge to institute similar reforms in their respective states. Americans for Job Security also stood up to the Trial Lobby’s largess with radio ads and a public information campaign.

“Thanks to the principled leadership of Gov. Perry and Lt. Gov. Dewhurst, a strong tort reform bill has emerged from the Senate,” said Stephen DeMaura, president of Americans for Job Security. “This important legislation would be a boost to Texas’s economy, freeing small business owners from the threat of frivolous lawsuits and securing the Lone Star State’s status as a magnet to job creators.”

Properly understood, Gov. Perry’s aggressive reforms should be classified along with Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s and New Jersey Governor Christ Christie’s union and budget reforms. In Texas, Perry is confronting a powerful pillar of the Democrat establishment – the Trial Lobby spent nearly $14 million to defeat Perry last year – just as Walker and Christie are attempting to do with Big Labor. It’s why these men have been successful to date, hold the promise of future success and remain exceedingly popular within the Republican Party. It is also terrific policy designed to create a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic environment. The nation’s other governors should take note.