Today, I offer evidence suggesting Ben Barnes, lobbyist for the plaintiff in a lawsuit that could cost San Ramon, Calif.-based Chevron $27 billion, has been reading this blog. It takes a while to explain, but I think you’ll find it offers worthwhile and relevant information about the Chevron lawsuit now being tried in a thoroughly-corrupt Ecuadoran legal system.
In a post almost four months ago, I reported some interesting findings related to the lawsuit and Barnes, a former lieutenant governor of Texas:
In block 14 of this document, 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.
I went on to point out four self-evident truths:
- 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.
I ended the post by concluding that Barnes’ claim of no foreign-entity involvement reminded me of President Bill Clinton telling the nation, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Flash forward to today and another lobbying registration document — this one for a group called “Frente”. If the name reads familiar to you, it’s because the long version of it, Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia (Spanish for “Amazon Defense Coalition”), was mentioned in my June 11 post, What Will Be The Outcome of the Amazon Defense Coalition’s Lawsuit Against Chevron in Ecuador?, as being the nonprofit formed by Donziger so he could file suit for personal injuries suffered by Ecuadorans supposedly harmed by Chevron-Texaco exploration efforts in the country.
Just like it was in the form mentioned at the top of this post, the “NO” box in section 14 of the new document dated Sept. 2, 2009, and signed by Barnes, is checked. Again, Barnes wants you to believe no foreign entity is involved in his agreement to provide lobbying services for the Frente (a.k.a., ADC/FDA). But isn’t there?
A check of the client address shown on the lobbying registration document matches an address attributed to Donziger, head of the Ecuadoran-based nonprofit — call it ADC or FDA, your choice — on a Federal Election Commission Itemized Receipts form completed by the Udall for Us All Committee, a group which raised funds for the U.S. Senate campaign of Democrat Tom Udall in New Mexico.
Though I’m no lawyer, I remain mystified that anyone — especially Barnes — can expect others to believe that no foreign entity is involved in Barnes’ agreement to provide lobbying services to Frente when Frente itself is an Ecuadoran-based nonprofit and Donziger is its chief?
Special thanks to Carter Wood, another who has followed the lawsuit closely as chief blogger at the National Association of Manufacturers’ Shop Floor blog, for helping me research some aspects of the post above.






Multiple Guest Appearances
"Mohammed the Bear" Stuff
"Don't Taze Me, Bro!"
"Yikes! I Might Be...Militia!"
Ramadan Coke Post
Credentialed Poll Watcher
HERO SHOT
Mitt Romney Post
"2007 BugsGoneWild.com Calendar"
Ramadan Coke Post


























As of 12-31-08





















6 responses so far ↓
1 Lobbyist’s Disclosure Documents Raise Serious Questions in Chevron-Ecuador Lawsuit « The Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit Clearinghouse // Oct 15, 2009 at 3:23 pm
[...] Read the full article. Comments (0) Trackbacks (0) Leave a comment Trackback [...]
2 » Lobbyist’s Disclosure Documents Raise Serious Questions in Chevron-Ecuador Lawsuit NoisyRoom.net: Where liberty dwells, there is my country… // Oct 15, 2009 at 7:40 pm
[...] By: Bob McCarty Bob McCarty Writes [...]
3 Bill Hamilton // Oct 16, 2009 at 6:47 am
Ben Barnes can defend himself, but it’s clear you don’t understand the law. The test is whether you are paid by and/or take direction from a foreign entity. Barnes, as I understand it, represents American lawyers and non-profit groups seeking to resolve a 16-year-old lawsuit against Chevron/Texaco. The case was filed in the U.S. and moved to Ecuador’s courts at Chevron’s insistence. It hasn’t worked out so well for Chevron, but that’s not the fault of either Barnes or Ecuador.
4 hotoffthepress2 // Oct 16, 2009 at 6:53 am
Bill — One needs not “understand the law” to recognize the fact that there is a foreign entity is involved. You need only look at my posts about bribery allegations involved in this case to see that the government of Ecuador appears to have been intimately involved in the case.
5 mattl // Nov 14, 2009 at 1:57 pm
hotoffthepress2 – Interesting that you mention the “bribery” incident alleged by ChevronTexaco in the lawsuit in Ecuador. The videotapes that the corporation touted as demonstrating the Ecuadoran court’s corruption and inability to conduct a fair trial showed nothing of the sort. What they clearly demonstrate is ChevronTexaco’s intent to subvert the legal process, including possible violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a U.S. law that prohibits American businesses from bribing foreign officials. This would not be a first for the company. The fact is that in this instance, ChevronTexaco appears to have hired a convicted drug trafficker, with no connection to environmental remediation as he claimed in the video, to set up and film the primary incident. Another man involved in filming these tapes is a former ChevronTexaco contractor who it turns out is currently being paid by — you guessed it — ChevronTexaco. The company now admits as much, whereas it previously stated that it had no contact with any of the principles involved before the tapes surfaced, a blatant lie. Moreover, the “Ecuadoran official” who appears in the video is actually car salesman with no connections to the government or ruling party of Ecuador as alleged. The company’s assertion that the trial judge was implicated in the discussion is also not backed up by content of the tapes. Bottom line: this was a hoax orchestrated by the company and its PR operatives in a pathetic attempt to corrupt the legal process in Ecuador. It has blown up in the company’s face.
6 hotoffthepress2 // Nov 14, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Mattlevitch — Whatcha been smokin’, dude, that would cause you to believe what you’re dishin’ out?
Leave a Comment