by Deep Green Resistance News Service | May 18, 2012 | Lobbying, Toxification
By Amazon Defense Coalition
A new financial analysis has found that Chevron’s $18 billion Ecuador environmental liability poses a threat of “irreparable damage” to the oil major’s global operations if the plaintiffs make good on their promise to launch legal actions to enforce the judgment in countries where Chevron has billions of dollars in assets.
The report, by social investment analyst Simon Billenness, notes that the long-running case (Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco) “is reaching its most risky phase” for Chevron after an appeals court in Ecuador upheld the judgment in January and rendered it immediately enforceable. The report notes that Chevron’s defenses have been “severely compromised” because of a separate ruling by a New York federal appellate court that vacated a preliminary injunction purporting to bar worldwide enforcement of the judgment.
The Billenness Report also notes that Chevron has yet to disclose in its public filings that its own comptroller, Rex Mitchell, quietly submitted a sworn affidavit to U.S. federal court that concluded any enforcement of the judgment will cause “irreparable damage” to the company. Chevron has been trying to downplay the risk posed by the judgment in its public filings and press releases, concluded Billenness in the report, titled An Analysis of the Financial and Operational Risks to the Chevron Corporation from Aguinda v. ChevronTexaco.
“In sworn legal statements, Chevron has admitted that the company faces ‘irreparable injury’ to [its] business relationships’ [from any enforcement of the Ecuador case] yet has consistently refused to fully characterize these risks to its shareholders,” he wrote in the report. “Shareholders are rightly questioning whether the board and management are fulfilling their fiduciary duties to properly manage the significant risks to the company’s business and value.”
The report also concluded “the enormous breadth of Chevron’s global business operations makes the company particularly vulnerable to enforcement. There are many jurisdictions around the world in which the plaintiffs could seek court recognition and enforcement of the judgment, including many where Chevron has substantial reserves and that are of strategic importance.”
Key findings of the Billenness report include:
- The Ecuador judgment poses serious risks to Chevron’s worldwide operations, with the possibility of asset attachments and loss of social license to operate in new areas and markets;
- Chevron’s principal legal defenses against enforcement have either been severely compromised or have failed. These include the reversal of a preliminary injunction barring enforcement and the rejection by Ecuador’s government of a private investment arbitration that tried to halt the litigation;
- Chevron’s shareholders are stepping up calls for more transparent disclosure of the Ecuador liability, leading to increased pressure on management; and
- Chevron risks violating securities laws for withholding material information from shareholders.
Shareholders have been speaking out against Chevron management on the Ecuador issue for some time.
Last year, New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli blasted the company for “doing grave reputational damage” to itself by pursuing more legal proceedings “that only delay the inevitable…it’s time to face reality…[t]he entire case is looming like a hammer over shareholders’ heads.” And in a letter last May, several prominent institutional investors called on Chevron “to fully disclose … the risks to its operations and business from the potential enforcement” of the Ecuador judgment.
Chevron refused to even acknowledge or answer either the investor letter, according to the shareholders.
The plaintiffs have said they plan to enforce the judgment in various countries, but they have not announced any specifics other than to say Venezuela and Panama are being considered. Chevron has billions of dollars of assets in Australia, Kazakhstan, Singapore, Brazil, and Venezuela and operates in dozens of countries around the world, said Karen Hinton, the spokesperson for the Ecuadorians.
Billenness specializes in analyzing how environmental, social, and governance factors pose risks to shareholders. He has worked as an analyst and advisor to Trillium Asset Management and the Office of Investment of the AFL-CIO. He is a member of the U.S. Social Investment Forum and consults with entities that focus on social investing.
From Chevron Toxico: http://chevrontoxico.com/news-and-multimedia/2012/0517-chevron-faces-irreparable-damage-from-18-billion-judgment.html
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | May 17, 2012 | Lobbying, Repression at Home
By the Associated Press
A judge on Wednesday struck down a portion of a law giving the government wide powers to regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists, saying it left journalists, scholars and political activists facing the prospect of indefinite detention for exercising First Amendment rights.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest in Manhattan said in a written ruling that a single page of the law has a “chilling impact on First Amendment rights.” She cited testimony by journalists that they feared their association with certain individuals overseas could result in their arrest because a provision of the law subjects to indefinite detention anyone who “substantially” or “directly” provides “support” to forces such as al-Qaida or the Taliban. She said the wording was too vague and encouraged Congress to change it.
“An individual could run the risk of substantially supporting or directly supporting an associated force without even being aware that he or she was doing so,” the judge said.
She said the law also gave the government authority to move against individuals who engage in political speech with views that “may be extreme and unpopular as measured against views of an average individual.
“That, however, is precisely what the First Amendment protects,” Forrest wrote.
She called the fears of journalists in particular real and reasonable, citing testimony at a March hearing by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Christopher Hedges, who has interviewed al-Qaida members, conversed with members of the Taliban during speaking engagements overseas and reported on 17 groups named on a list prepared by the State Department of known terrorist organizations. He testified that the law has led him to consider altering speeches where members of al-Qaida or the Taliban might be present.
Hedges called Forrest’s ruling “a tremendous step forward for the restoration of due process and the rule of law.”
He said: “Ever since the law has come out, and because the law is so amorphous, the problem is you’re not sure what you can say, what you can do and what context you can have.”
Hedges was among seven individuals and one organization that challenged the law with a January lawsuit. The National Defense Authorization Act was signed into law in December, allowing for the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism. Wednesday’s ruling does not affect another part of the law that enables the United States to indefinitely detain members of terrorist organizations, and the judge said the government has other legal authority it can use to detain those who support terrorists.
A message left Wednesday with a spokeswoman for government lawyers was not immediately returned.
Bruce Afran, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, called the ruling a “great victory for free speech.”
“She’s held that the government cannot subject people to indefinite imprisonment for engaging in speech, journalism or advocacy, regardless of how unpopular those ideas might be to some people,” he said.
Read more from The Wall Street Journal:
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | May 13, 2012 | Colonialism & Conquest, Protests & Symbolic Acts
By Malaysia Sun
George W. Bush and several other members of his administration have been found guilty of war crimes by the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War.
In a unanimous vote on Saturday the symbolic Malaysian war crimes tribunal, part of an initiative by former Malaysian premier Mahathir Mohamad, found the former US President guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Seven of his former political associates, including former Vice President Dick Cheney and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, were also found guilty of war crimes and torture.
Press TV has reported the court heard evidence from former detainees in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay of torture methods used by US soldiers in prisons run by the American forces.
One former inmate described how he had been subjected to electric shocks, beatings and sexual abuse over a number of months.
A high ranking former UN official, former UN Assistant Secretary General, Denis Halliday, who also attended the trial, later told Press TV that the UN had been too weak during the Bush administration to enforce the Geneva Conventions.
He said: “The UN is a weak body, corrupted by member states, who use the Security Council for their own interests. They don’t respect the charter. They don’t respect the international law. They don’t respect the Geneva Conventions…A redundant, possibly a dangerous, and certainly corrupted organization.”
Following the hearing, former Malaysian premier Mahatir said of Bush and others: “These are basically murderers and they kill on large scale.”
It was the second so-called war crimes tribunal in Malaysia.
The token court was first held in November 2011 during which Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair were found guilty of committing “crimes against peace” during the Iraq war.
From Malaysia Sun:
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | May 1, 2012 | Colonialism & Conquest, Indigenous Autonomy, Lobbying, Mining & Drilling
By Dawn Paley / Vancouver Media Co-op
On Friday, the Chilean Supreme Court ratified a lower court ruling that rendered Goldcorp’s environmental assessment for the El Morro mine null, due to irregularities including the company’s failure to properly consult with the Diaguita Huascoaltinos Indigenous and Agricultural Community, whose lands would be destroyed if the mine is built.
Following the lower court ruling, Goldcorp stated that they would not stop working until they received an order declaring the Resolution of Environmental Quality, a kind of environmental permit, to be without effect. “This is the order, and there is no appeal,” said Sergio Campusano Villches, President of the Diaguita Huascualtino community.
The Chilean press is reporting that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous, and that the company must respond to the ruling before taking further steps towards opening the mine.
The judgement in their favour was a surprise, according to Campusano, who was already preparing to take the legal battle international.
“We were afraid because three of the five judges in the Chilean Supreme Court have been accused of being bought off,” Campusano told the Vancouver Media Co-op. “We were actually even preparing to go to the Inter American Commission, since we know there’s a lot of money at play here.”
The decision has raised the question of whether Goldcorp actually would prefer to deal with this case inside of Chile rather than in international courts, says Campusano. But, he says, his people will continue to oppose proposed copper mine, which requires an almost $4 billion investment by co-owners Goldcorp (70 per cent) and New Gold (30 per cent). Both companies are based in Vancouver.
“These days the ideas of ‘consultation’ and ‘consent’ have been manipulated by consulting and human resources firms that work for the government, local governments also stick their noses in there without knowing what they’re doing,” said Campusano. “All we did was play the game that they want us to play, and ‘the illusion’ has ended.”
The Diaguita Huascoaltinos Indigenous and Agricultural Community have already taken a case against Barrick Gold to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Campusano will be in Vancouver in early June to speak at the Shout Out Against Mining Injustice event, organized by the Council of Canadians.
From Vancouver Media Co-op: http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/chilean-supreme-court-red-lights-goldcorp-environmental-assessment/10689
by Deep Green Resistance News Service | Apr 28, 2012 | Defensive Violence, Male Violence
By Maurice Garland / The Loop 21
Nowadays the words “Stand Your Ground” have almost become synonymous with “no fair” and “unjust,” due mostly to the non-arrest of George Zimmerman the night he shot Trayvon Martin and that law that protected him up until just last week.
But the cases of John McNeil and now Marissa Alexander have highlighted the inconsistencies in the law’s application.
According to a blogsite pleading her case, in 2010, Alexander found herself in a violent confrontation with her husband. Her husband already had a history of abuse towards her and other women in the past, causing Alexander to place an injunction for protection against violence on him.
On this day in particular Alexander says that her husband, unprovoked, assaulted her in the bathroom of her home. She managed to get out of his grasp and ran to her car in the garage to leave, but realized that she didn’t have her keys. She was also unable to open the garage door to get out because of a mechanical malfunction.
At this point, she was very fearful for her life, but knew that she had to at least get her cell phone to call for help. That’s when she grabbed a gun, for which she had a concealed weapon permit. When she walked back into the kitchen area, she saw her husband again, who was supposed to be leaving through another door with his two sons (her stepsons). When he saw her, she says he screamed “bitch, I’ll kill you” and charged at her. She then pointed her weapon at the ceiling, turned her head and shot in the air. That scared her husband off.
But, he promptly called the police and told them that she shot the gun at him and his sons. She was taken to jail where she has been sitting ever since.
Alexander has been trying to use Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws to defend her actions, but to no avail. A judge ruled that Alexander was actually in the wrong, saying that she could have exited to safety through one of the other doors or windows in the house instead of crossing paths with her husband in the kitchen.
“I am a law abiding citizen and I take great pride in my liberty, rights, and privileges as one,” pleads Alexander on the blogsite telling her story. ” I have vehemently proclaimed my innocence and my actions that day. The enigma I face since that fateful day I was charged through trial, does the law cover and apply to me too?”
From AlterNet: http://www.alternet.org/rights/155173/woman_in_jail_for_shooting_at_abusive_husband%3A_why_didn%27t_stand_your_ground_laws_apply_to_her/
