18.02.2013 Views

hLpb5

hLpb5

hLpb5

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

estimate was prepared in "a very short time, with only a week of review time in the jungle, and<br />

heavily influenced by [Donziger] in the writing." At Donziger's insistence, and as evidence of<br />

his heavy influence on Russell's initial calculation, Russell used the most expensive remedial<br />

option available, because Donziger wanted a "large" damages estimate. Even so, Russell made<br />

clear to Donziger and others that the quantitative data "ha[ d] not [been] reliably established" and<br />

that he and his team were "still at the guessing stage."<br />

103. As Russell continued his work, he realized that the evidence on the ground did<br />

not support his damages estimate. By December 2004, he told Donziger "that Texaco may be<br />

right when they indicate that the remediation is performing as designed, and degrading the<br />

petroleum." Two months later he provided an update to Donziger in which he explained, "From<br />

the data I have seen so far, we are not finding any of the highly carcinogenic compounds one<br />

would hope to see when investigating the oil pits."<br />

104. After Russell prepared his estimate, he learned that the remediation work he<br />

considered appropriate could be completed at a substantially lower cost and wrote Donziger in<br />

February 2006 to demand that he stop using the unsupported and exaggerated $6 billion estimate.<br />

In his letter, Russell informed Donziger that the information he had since learned "would cause<br />

me to state that the 2003 cost estimate is too high by a substantial margin, perhaps by a factor of<br />

ten, or more." (Emphasis in original.) And indeed, a year later, another of the co-conspirators,<br />

Charles Champ, estimated that a remediation and related social and development projects could<br />

be done for $1 billion, an estimate that itself is wildly exaggerated and calculated using fictional<br />

cost assumptions. Nonetheless, the RICO Defendants have never publicly disclosed this<br />

exaggerated figure because it is too low for their illicit purposes.<br />

105. In that same cease-and-desist letter, Russell objected to Donziger's and Amazon<br />

Watch's use of the $6 billion estimate in their request to the U.S. Securities and Exchange<br />

Commission ("SEC") for the SEC to "investigate Chevron under Sarbanes-Oxley" for allegedly<br />

"underreporting their liabilities." Russell made clear that the "estimate is no longer valid and if<br />

44

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!