Ben Barnes (right) with President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1970.
Just when I thought things couldn’t get any shadier, I’ve learned that the lobbyist now representing the Amazon Defense Coalition (via Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.) in its $27 billion lawsuit against San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron Corporation is the same man who represented Stanford Financial Group and its now-indicted founder R. Allen Stanford between 2002 and 2008.
The Houston Chronicle reported earlier this year that lobbyist Ben Barnes had earned a cool $1.8 million representing Stanford, a man Forbes magazine listed as the 205th richest American in 2008. According to lobbying disclosure reports, that income stream began small — less than $10,000 from Stanford in 2006 – and fluctuated during the next three years: $500,000 in 2007; $165,000 in 2008; and, according to the most-recent report, $110,000 so far in 2009.
This morning, the world learned through reports in newspapers like the Los Angeles Times that Stanford has been indicted after first being accused by SEC regulators of having enriched himself by perpetrating an $8 billion investment fraud.
But is it a crime for Barnes, a long-time Democrat who once served as lieutenant governor of Texas, to earn a living by providing services to wealthy clients or to clients who stand to become super-wealthy as a result of the ADC lawsuit? Not at all. But that’s not what stinks here.
By searching the Lobbying Disclosure Database managed by the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, I learned something interesting about Barnes’ disclosure regarding his lobbying relationship with his client, Kohn Swift & Graf. In block 14 of this document (see graphic above), Barnes checked the box next to a message that reads as follows: “No –> Sign and date the registration.” By doing so, he was claiming essentially that there is no foreign entity involved in his agreement to provide lobbying services for the law firm.
While technically correct in that Kohn Swift & Graf is a Philadelphia-based law firm, only those who choose to ignore naked emperor can ignore the elephant in this virtual room. The truths are self-evident:
- Kohn Swift & Graf is funding the ADC’s lawsuit against Chevron and has, as far back as 2003, admitted having its attorneys directly involved in the case (See “U.S. lawyers take US$1 billion lawsuit against Chevron Texaco to Ecuador,” May 6, 2003);
- Steven R. Donziger, a New York-based attorney, is leading the ADC’s litigation effort;
- The lawsuit is being tried in an Ecuadoran court by an Ecuadoran judge; and
- The ADC is an Ecuador-based nonprofit organization.
No foreign entities? Reminds me of President Bill Clinton telling the nation, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Everyone knows he did it.
* * *
To learn more about the ADC’s spurious lawsuit against Chevron in Ecuador, read these BMW posts.
4 responses so far ↓
1 » What Does Allen Stanford Have in Common with Amazon Defense Coalition? Lobbyist Ben Barnes NoisyRoom.net: “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the face of tyranny is no virtue.” Barry Goldwater // Jun 19, 2009 at 7:07 pm
[...] By: Bob McCarty Bob McCarty Writes [...]
2 What Does Allen Stanford Have in Common with Amazon Defense Coalition? Lobbyist Ben Barnes « Amazon Defense Coalition Watch // Jun 22, 2009 at 6:12 am
[...] Read the full article. [...]
3 V. Kaplan // Jul 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm
If we really want to start looking at whose people are engaged in foul play in this case, let’s start with the most obvious (though the least likely to be reported on this blog): Chevron’s lawyers, currently under criminal indictment for fraud involving evidence in the case.
Ricardo Reis Veiga, a Chevron vice president, and Rodrigo Perez Pallares, who has represented Chevron in Ecuador for more than 30 years, were indicted in September along with seven former Ecuadorian government officials for allegedly conspiring to falsify the results of a mid-1990s environmental clean-up that Chevron had hoped would secure its release from liability for up to $27.3 billion in damages for the largest environmental oil disaster in the world.
And just last week, Chevron may have nailed the final nail in the coffin of its own lawyers. A count-appointed scientific expert – indeed, he was paid by Chevron for his work – submitted the final batch of lab results for the case, which proved that no meaningful remediation had in fact taken place at two oil well sites that Reis Veiga and Perez Pallares had maintained had been cleaned up by Chevron more than 10 years ago.
Both sites, Auca 17 and Auca 19, contain Total Petroleum Hydrocarbon (TPH) levels in soil and water several times higher than the maximum allowed by Ecuadorian law, according to Dr. Marcelo Munoz, the count-appointed expert and a respected Ecuadorian scientist.
It’s worth noting again that the same indicted Mr. Perez Pallares – Chevron’s top lawyer in Ecuador for more than three decades – signed checks to Dr. Munoz for more than $20,000 for his work gathering evidence for this final field report. The readers of this blog deserve to have the facts checked. The truth is, both sides in the case, as ordered by the court, write checks to the court-appointed experts to pay all expenses associated with the collection of evidence necessary to ensure a fair, unbiased trial.
4 hotoffthepress2 // Jul 3, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Hey V. Kaplain,
I find it hard to take you seriously, especially when the IP address ( 190.154.65.27 ) attached to your comment leads to Quito, Ecuador. I’m guessing you’re a paid shill for the Amazon Defense Coalition. How much of the anticipated $27 billion judgment will you receive? Inquiring minds want to know!
Leave a Comment