Stavers Decl. Ex. G - Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit Trial

EXHIBIT G

Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK-JCF Document 1849-7 Filed 12/23/13 Page 1 of 14

Exhibit D

Exhibit D

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHEVRON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN DONZIGER et al., Defendants.

11-CV-0691 The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, U.S.D.J. The Honorable James C. Francis, U.S.M.J.

DIRECT TESTIMONY WITNESS STATEMENT OF ALEJANDRO PONCE -VILLACIS

I, ALEJANDRO PONCE-VILLACIS, hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that the following is true and correct:

1. My name is Alejandro Ponce-Villacis.

2. I am a licensed attorney in Ecuador. I worked on the Aguinda case between June 2005 and November 2008. I have never been disbarred or sanctioned by the legal association of Ecuador or the Council of the Judiciary or any Court in Ecuador. Up to this date I am fully authorized by Law to act as attorney in Ecuador before any Court in the country.

3. Education background: I obtained my Juris Doctor Degree in April 1993 from Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador and my LL.M. Degree on International Legal Studies from the Washington College of Law of American University in December 1994. Beginning in 1991, while still in Law School, I became involved in human rights issues, particularly those related to detainees. Later, I applied for the L.L.M Program at the Washington College of Law of American University where I focused on human rights subjects with an emphasis on International Protection of Human Rights. While I was an LLM Student I worked, for a period of eight months as a Dean´s Fellow for the International Human Rights Law Clinic. I actively participated in activities organized by the Washington College of Law and its Human Right Center, including the publication of a Human Rights Brief, to which I was a founder of the publication.

4. Work History: After graduating from Law School, I became an associate for Quevedo & Ponce Law firm. I was part of the firm between 1993 and 1997. During this time I mainly worked on criminal and civil litigation as well as intellectual property litigation. I

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


2

also handled pro-bono cases for the firm, including human rights cases such as the “Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador” which was the first case ever taken before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against Ecuador. After leaving the firm, by May 1998, I formed a boutique law firm called Ponce, Fernandez de Córdoba & von Reckow. I was a Partner for the firm until November 30, 2008. As partner of Ponce, Fernández de Córdoba & von Reckow, I mainly worked on litigation, including complex litigation cases in which I successfully represented clients such as Cessna Aircraft Company and Bell Helicopters. I also worked in Human Right cases before the Inter-American Human Rights Commission and Court, including the “Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador” case, which was the first case in the Americas in which the Court addressed the issue related to expropriation of real estate property. In December of 2008, I returned to Quevedo & Ponce as a partner for the firm. I planned and opened the fourth office of Quevedo & Ponce in Cumbaya and have opened two more offices for the firm since then in Manta and Ibarra. Additionally, I have worked as part of the litigation team of the firm in complex litigation cases. In the fall of 1993, I started teaching at the Law School of Pontificia Universidad Catolica as an adjunct professor. In the summer of 1999 I started teaching law at Universidad San Francisco de Quito first in an adjunct position and, from August 2002 through February 2013, in a full time position as Director of the Legal Clinics of which I was the founding professor. As professor of Law, I have taught classes on International Law, Civil Law and Civil Procedure Law.

5. Meeting Steven Donziger: On January 1, 1994, I traveled to the United States in order to begin my Masters of Law studies at American University in Washington D.C. On the day of my arrival, while staying with friends, I met Steven Donziger.

6. Start of the case in the United States: I had several discussions with Steven Donziger

regarding the Aguinda case that was originally filed in 1993 in New York. We discussed the fact that Texaco had defended itself under the argument of “forum non conveniens”. We discussed that defendant expressed that Ecuadorian Courts would provide a better and more appropriate forum to decide the case and that Texaco had argued that Ecuadorian courts were properly suited to provide due process of law to the parties. Steven and I discussed that while Texaco’s argument was accepted by the U.S. Courts, one of the conditions set forth in the decision was that Texaco was prevented from disputing jurisdiction in Ecuador as well as from asserting statute of limitations as a defense.

7. Start of Aguinda case in Ecuador: After the Aguinda case was filed in Ecuador in May of 2003 against Chevron, there were several times that I discussed the case with Steven and I explained to him that the procedure followed in an environmental case in Ecuador is based on rules establishing a written procedure, with limited oral proceedings. Once the complaint is filed, a plaintiff cannot modify its complaint. I explained to Steven that the Defendant had the right to present its answer in an oral hearing. We discussed the fact that Chevron had chosen to read aloud its entire answer to the complaint for the public and the press. We discussed the fact that Chevron appeared to be determined to fight this case in the press in a very public way. Steven and I also discussed the fact that Chevron said was that they were contesting jurisdiction in Ecuador. The statute of

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


3

limitations defense was also proposed as a defense. This conduct by Chevron was a real concern that Steven and I discussed and in fact we discussed whether we could re-file the case in the United States in light of Chevron refusal to abide by the earlier statements to the U.S. courts. Steven and I discussed the fact that judicial inspections were ordered and that the plaintiffs asked for inspection of over a hundred sites. Steven and I discussed the fact that the plaintiffs asked for a single global damages expert report and that Chevron did not ask for any damages experts. Steven and I discussed the fact that Chevron did not challenge on the facts the validity, necessity and adequacy of all the evidence filed, produced and requested by plaintiffs.

8. In 2003, Steven Donziger and John Bonifaz visited me in my office and asked me to join the legal team for the case. At that time I declined mainly because Quevedo & Ponce, and particularly my father, had been attorneys for Texaco for many years and we expected that such representation would continue for the Aguinda case. I felt that it would be strange to have two different attorneys with same name, father and son, on different sides of a case. However, Chevron did not retain Quevedo & Ponce for its defense.

9. My involvement with the case: I was then contacted to take part in the case by Luis Yanza and Manuel Pallares. They visited my firm, asked me if I could become part of the team and asked me to develop a strategy for the judicial inspections and for the conduction of the pending evidence. I accepted their request but told them that a local lawyer in Lago Agrio would also be needed to lead the case from there. In my opinion, the case could not be led from Quito. They mentioned that Pablo Fajardo, a recently admitted lawyer could take that role. We agreed that Pablo Fajardo would lead the case in Lago Agrio and I would provide advice on the strategy as well as draft pleadings etc. We had constant meetings to discuss prosecution of the case. Steven Donziger was present for some of the meetings. I worked on the case until November 2008 when I had to leave the case because of my incorporation as a partner of Quevedo & Ponce since the firm had Chevron as one of its clients.

10. The Concession Area: I have been to the concession area and personally viewed the contamination on multiple occasions. Steven and I discussed the presence of contamination on several occasions. He and I discussed the fact that you can see the oil and impurities in the remaining pits and the fact that the remnants are so thick that at some sites you can walk on top of the old pits and feel the jello-like sludge below. Steven and I discussed the fact that if you dig down just a few feet, even in the remediated sites, the soil that is removed smells of petroleum and you can see the oil in the mud. I have also reviewed the studies done of the health effects of the contamination to the area that were submitted to the court for its consideration. I also am personally aware the court during some site inspections went to areas where the contamination and damages are evident not only for the presence of petroleum but for the total absence of the natural noise of nature in the amazon. There, silence is the rule as the animals are all gone.

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


4

11. Judicial Inspections: In 2004, the judicial inspections started. I personally witnessed a number of judicial inspections. At the inspections I attended, the judge heard argument from counsel and received testimony from villagers. Both parties were allowed to ask questions of the witnesses. The judicial inspections I attended were always audio-recorded (by both sides) and often video-recorded as well. The court official would then create an Actos or written statement of the proceedings and both sides had an opportunity to suggest changes. The final Actos was based upon the agreement of all parties as to what happened at that judicial inspection. These documents, as provided in the Civil Procedure Code, were signed by the Presiding Judge, the Court Clerk and the attorneys that participated in the proceedings. For each inspection that I attended, experts were appointed by the Court to issue reports regarding the factual situation of each site. Each party was allowed to request specific analysis by the experts. At each judicial inspection I attended, samples were taken at various locations by both sides. I personally observed Chevron taking samples from remote areas of the site where I observed there was no sign of prior oil industry activity. I discussed all of the above observations with Steven Donziger.

12. As I mentioned in the previous section, I was retained to help design the strategy of the

case. In this sense I decided that the litigation of the case should follow “strategic litigation” (also called impact litigation) techniques. As part of this strategy, I implemented that at each inspection we should emphasize at least one specific issue or element of our claim. In my opinion, this was important in order to educate the judge in connection with the complexity of the matter. I also considered that through this planned strategy, we were able to have control of the case without allowing Chevron to predict our conduct in each inspection. In compliance with local law I decided that, at some of the inspections, we would present documents to the court, in others I decided we would have witnesses give testimony, in others I would instruct a member of our team make arguments on legal matters and in others I decided we would release particular information to the press. Certainly, from July 2005, based on my personal observations and my personal review of the record of proceeding, I am aware that no two inspections were the same. As I mentioned in some of the inspections I am personally aware that we provided documents to the court but did not receive an official receipt from the Court. I discussed the above matters with Steven Donziger. In this context, Steven and I also discussed the problems this case presented for the existing Ecuadorian system. I explained to Steven on several occasions that this was an extremely unusual case on many levels for the Ecuadorian legal system. The case was very complex and very document intensive. I was personally aware that neither the lawyers nor the judges had handled any case like this before. I explained to Steven that for the lawyers especially, this case presented new issues and problems we had never dealt with before. We were all learning as we went along in the case. To a large extent, our decisions regarding how to handle aspects of the case came from watching how Chevron’s lawyers handled those same or similar issues.

13. I also suggested several young lawyers for our team. In 2005, a young student, Luis Alberto Borja became part of the team for a short period. Later on, Julio Prieto and Juan

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


5

Pablo Sáenz became part of the team. I recommended these three because they had all been my students at Universidad San Francisco de Quito.

14. Guanta inspection: In October of 2005, I am personally aware there was a scheduled judicial inspection of the Guanta site. I had made plans, and we had incurred significant costs, for this inspection including getting experts scheduled. I had been told that a number of reporters were planning on being present. The afternoon before the inspection I was told that Chevron had gotten the judge to cancel the inspection based upon alleged security issues. I discussed these matters with Steven. I then was involved in an investigation of Chevron’s allegations regarding security issues and discovered evidence that indicated to me that there was no basis for Chevron’s allegations and Chevron had presented unsubstantiated documents to the court in support of its claims. Steven Donziger was present for these events and I discussed the events as well as my beliefs discussed above regarding Chevron’s conduct with him. I also discussed with Steven that I believed Chevron’s conduct had cost the plaintiff’s group money. Moreover, I discussed with Steven that I believed, based on what we uncovered, that personnel working with Chevron had provided the Court with a false report regarding the security of Chevron´s attorneys in order to obtain the suspension of the inspection in Guanta. At that time, I was personally aware and I discussed with Steven the fact that Chevron had a villa inside military facilities in Lago Agrio where its personnel lived and that there was a close relationship between Chevron and some of the men stationed at that facility. I discussed with Steven my understanding that there was also an agreement for some of the men to provide security for Chevron. A few days after we reported to the press and the Court the findings of our investigation, my office was broken into, my computer was stolen and all documents in the office were reviewed, including those that were in the garbage. CD´s which were marked as backups were stolen. Importantly, money was not taken from drawers. At the same time I started to receive calls at 5 am. Due to this incidents I obtained precautionary measures granted by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. I discussed these matters with Steven and I discussed my suspicions that Chevron was behind or at least involved in the break-in.

15. Havoc Labs: In 2005, I am personally aware that Chevron filed a motion in Quito requesting an inspection of the lab we had hired to do our testing. I discussed with Steven my belief that Chevron’s actions in this regard were contrary to Ecuadorian law and were an unfair and underhanded attempt to scare-off or in some way interfere with the only lab available to do testing for us. Our firm opposed this motion arguing that the request was merely to harass the laboratory owners and was an attempt to pressure the laboratory to stop working with us. Furthermore, we argued that Chevron inappropriately requested the inspection without giving notice to the Lago Agrio plaintiffs as required under the Civil Procedure Code. I explained and discussed all of this with Steven. Until I left the case, the Court had still not issued a final decision. I discussed this fact with Steven.

16. Ceasing judicial inspections: In 2006, I have personal knowledge that the plaintiffs’ group asked that judicial inspections stop for the remaining sites originally requested by the plaintiffs. In fact, I was the attorney who made the decision that we should take that step. I explained to Steven that the two main reasons for this decision were, first that the

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


6

results on each site showed similar results confirming contamination, thus it was clearly unnecessary to have more inspections to re-confirm each time that plaintiffs were right on the assertions made in the case. The second reason as I explained to Steven, was financial, the cost of each inspection was high and on several occasions we did not have the money necessary for the inspection. Our motion pointed out that we already had sufficient evidence of contamination to prove our case and since Texaco’s operations were uniform at each site, continued inspections would not be helpful. Plaintiffs did not ask that the judicial inspections requested by Chevron be stopped. Chevron opposed our motion. The court ruled in our favor. I have personal knowledge of these facts and I discussed them with Steven Donziger.

17. Ex Parte Contact: Before March of 2009, in my opinion, it was not against Ecuadorian law for parties to discuss a case with a judge without the opposing counsel being present. Chevron did it repeatedly. I discussed both of these matters with Steven Donziger.

18. I have personal knowledge that Steven Donziger was never an attorney on the Ecuadorian case, although he was a member of the legal team. I have personal knowledge that plaintiff’s group often had money problems and we were often forced to make decisions as to which tests to conduct or what lines of evidence to pursue based upon our limited resources. I discussed this fact with Steven. Although Steven was present in many meetings of the team, I participated in the strategic legal decisions and these decisions were often made by the local team and, on occasion, with Steven’s disagreement. I would discuss these matters with Steven so he would be aware. Steven was not, during the time I was a member of the team, the “leader” of the legal team or in charge of the legal team.

19. I discussed on many occasions with Steven my opinion that Ecuadorians have a legal

right to protest and to express their opinions publicly. I have personally witnessed a number of marches and protests by the indigenous tribes relating to Texaco / Chevron’s contamination of their land and the Aguinda lawsuit. To my knowledge, no person representing Chevron has ever been injured, harmed or personally threatened because of their affiliation with Chevron. On the contrary, I am aware attorneys for the plaintiffs have been harassed by Chevron supporters. I discussed this fact with Steven.

20. I discussed with Steven the fact that in the Aguinda case, Chevron’s lawyers were repeatedly sanctioned by the Ecuadorian judges for filing frivolous motions, repeatedly filing the similar or repetitive motions on the same issue and for abusing the legal process. I discussed with Steven my belief that this conduct on Chevron’s behalf was done for the purpose of overburdening the court system and the judge. I explained to Steven that in Ecuador, when a motion is filed, it must be ruled upon within 9 days. I explained to Steven my belief that Chevron knew the Lago Agrio courts were overburdened, and for that reason Chevron would sometimes file dozens of motions on the same day as they knew it would be difficult for the judge to meet that deadline. I explained to Steven that I believed this was part of Chevron’s strategy.

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


15775

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��

21. February 14, 2011 Sentencia: After the sentencia was issued, Chevron hired an expert who opined that I might be the ghost-writer for the verdict. This expert relied upon a brief at least partially drafted and written by Alejandro Ponce-Martinez (my father), partner of the firm Quevedo & Ponce. Such brief was filed in 1996. To my recollection more than one partner participated in the drafting of this document. At that time I was an associate for the firm. The assertion made by the Chevron expert was untrue, since I did not play any role in the writing of the verdict. Furthermore, as soon as I learned that such assertion was made, both by the expert as well as by attorneys for Chevron, I sent, a "cease and desist" letter to Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (dated September 27, 2011). In this letter, I warned Chevron that if such assertion were repeated 1 would file an action on damages. Up to this date 1 have not received any answer. (I enclose a copy of the email sent).

22. I was present at a meeting with President Correa where we discussed the case, although not in any depth. In fact, the purpose of such meeting was to inform the President about certain conduct of former government officials that had signed and approved documents asserting that Texaco had made adequate environmental reparation. 1 informed the President that such reparation was far from perfect and that the General Comptroller's Office had issued a report in which it was stated that there was evidence of corruption. 1 should mention that at the time the meeting took place, 1 was representing Mr. Correa on a civil suit as his attorney. President Correa has publicly stated that Chevron should accept responsibility for its actions and pay for remediation. However, to the best of my knowledge, President Correa never intervened in the case, never ordered a judge to rule a certain way on any issue in the case or become involved in the case in any way.

Date: I / / II / 2471 / I

/ 1/ / I -' ,,' .- /

Signed:


15775

06/11/13 21:12Workspace Webma

Página 1 de 2http://email01.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=1461|INBOX.Sent_Items&aEmlPart=0

Print | Close Window

Subject: Afirmaciones realizadas en mi contra por su cliente Chevron Corporation.- Advertencia.-From: "Alejandro Ponce Villacís" <[email protected]>Date: Tue, Sep 27, 2011 10:06 am

To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]: icon_sm_facebook.gif

Cumbayá, 26 de septiembre de 2011

SeñorRandy M. MastroGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP200 Park AvenueNew York, NY, 10116U.S.A!SeñoraAndrea E. NeumanGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP3161 Michelson DriveIrvine, CA, 92612U.S.A!SeñorWilliam E. ThomsonGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP333 South Grand AveLos Angeles, CA, 90071U.S.A!

Ref: Afirmaciones realizadas en mi contra por su cliente Chevron Corporation.-Advertencia.-

Señores:

Me dirijo a ustedes en su calidad de abogados de la empresa Chevron Corporation.

Como ustedes conocen entre junio del año 2005 y noviembre del año 2008 fui uno de los abogadosmiembros del equipo legal en el proceso que por daño ambiental se inició en contra de su cliente en laciudad de Nueva Loja (Lago Agrio) por parte de un grupo de habitantes de la zona. A partir del 1 dediciembre de 2008 dejé de actuar y representar a tales personas debido a mi incorporación al EstudioJurídico Quevedo & Ponce.

Hoy he llegado a conocer sobre algunas afirmaciones realizadas a nombre de su cliente, tanto en la radioy prensa ecuatoriana en las que se afirma la existencia de actividades corruptas y fraudulentas por partedel equipo legal del caso mencionado, equipo al cual pertenecí durante el período señalado en el párrafoprecedente. De igual manera, he visto que ustedes en un escrito presentado ante la Corte Distrital delDistrito Sur de New York el día 1 de agosto de 2011 afirman, a nombre de Chevron Corporation, que lasentencia del Juez Zambrano no es de autoría de dicho funcionario judicial y que por el contrario es"bastante similar" a mi estilo de escritura. Este último documento se encuentra a disposición pública en

la siguiente dirección web:

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


http://email01.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=1461%7CINBOX.Sent_Items&aEmlPart=0#

http://email01.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=1461%7CINBOX.Sent_Items&aEmlPart=0#

06/11/13 21:12Workspace Webmail :: Pri

Página 2 de 2http://email01.secureserver.net/view_print_multi.php?uidArray=1461|INBOX.Sent_Items&aEmlPart=0

la siguiente dirección web:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/04/CVX%20RICO,%20Count%209%20--%20Memo%20in%20support%20of%20CVX%20OSC%20motion%20on%20LAP's%20discovery%20--%20August%201,%202011.pdf

No descarto que existan afirmaciones semejantes en otro tipo de publicaciones o páginas web.

Resulta evidente que las afirmaciones antes señaladas tienen la clara intención de causarme daño y conello se están afectando gravemente mis derechos.

Por ello, con el fin de evitar la inmediata iniciación de acciones en contra de su cliente ChevronCorporation, les solicito que informen a su cliente sobre el contenido de la presente comunicación con elfin de que CHEVRON CORPORATION se retracte de las mismas y rectifique las graves afirmacionesrealizadas en mi contra. Además, deberá comprometerse a no realizar afirmaciones semejantes en elfuturo.

De ser necesario, cualquier comunicación la recibiré en la siguiente dirección:

Dr. Alejandro Ponce-VillacísBernavé Lovato S23-49Miravalle 4, CumbayáQuito, EcuadorFax: 593 2 2897567Telf: 593 2 2897567!

Atentamente,

Dr. Alejandro Ponce-Villacís

!

cc. Socios de QUEVEDO & PONCE, Estudio JurídicoAlejandro Ponce VillacísQUEVEDO & PONCEBernavé Lovato S23-49Miravalle 4, Cumbaya, QuitoTelf. 593 2 2897567Fax: 593 2 2897567www.quevedo-ponce.net

Facebook

Copyright © 2003-2013. All rights reserved.

Case

'()(1'$176�(;+,%,7�';��3DJH��RI��


http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/08/04/CVX%20RICO

http://www.quevedo-ponce.net/

http://www.facebook.com/update_security_info.php?wizard=1#!/pages/Quevedo-Ponce/130276693658242

In The Matter Of:CHEVRON CORPORATION vSTEVEN R. DONZIGER, et al.

November 13, 2013

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS500 PEARL STREET

NEW YORK, NY 10007212 805-0330

Original File DBDLCHEF.txt

Min-U-Script® with Word Index


EM

Direct Examination of Alejandro Ponce Villacis by Mr. Booth

CHEVRON CORPORATION vSTEVEN R. DONZIGER, et al. November 13, 2013

DBD8CHE2 Page 2219

18 MR. BOOTH: We call Alejandro Ponce.19 ALEJANDRO PONCE VILLACIS,20 called as a witness by the defendants,21 having been duly sworn, testified as follows:22 THE DEPUTY CLERK: State your name and spell your last

23 name for the record.24 THE WITNESS: My name is Alejandro Ponce Villacis,25 P-O-N-C-E, V-I-L-L-A-C-I-S.

Min-U-Script® SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (18) Pages 2216 - 2219


EM

CHEVRON CORPORATION vSTEVEN R. DONZIGER, et al. November 13, 2013DBD8CHE2 Page 2220

1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. BOOTH: 3 Q. Good morning, Mr. Ponce. 4 MR. BOOTH: May I approach, your Honor? 5 THE COURT: You may. 6 Q. Mr. Ponce, will you look at what I have handed you as 7 Defendants' Exhibit 1601. Can you confirm for the Court that 8 that is a copy of your direct testimony, your witness statement 9 in this case?10 A. Yes, it is.11 (Continued on next page)12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

DBDLCHE3 Ponce - direct Page 2221

1 Q. And on page 7, is that your signature? 2 A. Yes, it is. 3 MR. BOOTH: Your Honor, we would move into evidence 4 Defendant's Exhibit 1601. 5 THE COURT: 1601, specifically paragraphs one through 6 16, 18 to 20, and 22 are received on the same basis as the 7 other statements, that is, subject to the filing of objections, 8 if they haven't already been filed, and if they have been 9 filed, to the objections on file, and subsequent rulings as to10 the admissibility of the materials contained therein.11 (Defendant's Exhibit 1601 received in evidence)12 MR. BOOTH: Thank you, your Honor. Pass the witness.

Min-U-Script® SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS (19) Pages 2220 - 2223


Date post:	14-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Stavers Decl. Ex. G - Chevron Ecuador Lawsuit Trial

Documents