hRb7u

judgment that, if ultimately rendered, could be the result of a fraud practiced by the Lago Agrio
plaintiffs."
325. On February 14,2011, the Lago Agrio court did just that when it announced its
judgment, awarding $8.65 billion in supposed damages, another $865 million on top of the
damages to the Front as the Lago Agrio plaintiffs' representative, and $8.65 billion in punitive
damages, all of which are unsupported by law or evidence. In accordance with the conspirators'
longstanding strategy, the award is lower than the amounts the RICO Defendants claimed, so as
to allow the RICO Defendants to argue that the judgment was supposedly fair because the court
"cut down the largest part." On its face, the judgment confirms that it was not the product of
anything resembling a fair process and instead purports to impose record-breaking liability on
Chevron without even the pretense of a finding that Chevron actually caused any harm. While
disclaiming reliance on Cabrera, the judgment necessarily relied on Cabrera's fraudulent report
(the only "evidence" of causation in the case) and on the reports of the RICO Defendants' other
"new" experts, such as Allen, Shefftz and Barnthouse, whose reports were designed by the RICO
Defendants and their co-conspirators to "whitewash" the Cabrera Report and who themselves
have admitted to relying on the Cabrera Report, rather than conducting their own independent
analyses. The judgment further imposed another $8.65 billion as "punitive" damages, although
Ecuadorian law does not allow for punitive damages and the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs did not even
seek such damages in their complaint. The Lago Agrio court stated that it would relieve
Chevron of this "punitive penalty" only if Chevron issued a public "apology" in both the
Ecuadorian and United States press, effectively admitting liability, within fifteen days of the
judgment. The apparent purpose ofthis penalty was to coerce an unjustified admission of
liability from Chevron by making the cost of an appeal equal to $8.65 billion so that Chevron
could not possibly successfully appeal or challenge enforcement later. In addition, the judgment
all but ignored Chevron's undisputed evidence of the RICO Defendants' misconduct, including
the Calmbacher and Cabrera frauds.
128