Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
9Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ethical Complaint Against DiNapoli to Joint Commission

Ethical Complaint Against DiNapoli to Joint Commission

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,579 |Likes:
Published by cara12345

More info:

Published by: cara12345 on Nov 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
BEFORE THE NEW YORK STATE JOINT COMMISSION ONPUBLIC ETHICS
CHEVRON CORPORATION,Complainant,v.THOMAS P. DINAPOLI,Respondent.
IN THE MATTER OF AN INVESTIGATION INTOAPPARENT MISCONDUCT BY NEW YORK STATECOMPTROLLER THOMAS P. DINAPOLI
 
 
INTRODUCTION
Chevron Corporation (“Chevron”) files this Complaint in order to urgethe New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (the “Commission”) to
investigate the apparent misconduct of New York State Comptroller Thomas P.DiNapoli in violation of New York Public Officers Law Section 74
et seq
.Beginning at least as early as 2003 and continuing to the present, a group of lawyers and consultants, including New York attorney Steven Donziger, haveorchestrated a scheme to extort a multibillion-dollar payoff from Chevron inconnection with a fraudulent litigation against Chevron in Lago Agrio, Ecuador
(the “Lago Agrio Litigation”). That the Lago Agrio Litigation is a fraud, thereis no doubt. Federal courts around the United States have found “ample
evidence of 
fraud in the Ecuadorian proceedings.”
1
Indeed, the evidence of 
1
 
Chevron Corp. v. Champ
, Nos. 1:10-mc-27, 1 :10-mc-28, 2010 WL 3418394, at *6 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 30,2010) (
“While this court is unfamiliar with the practices of the Ecuadorian judicial system, the court must
believe that the concept of fraud is universal, and that what has blatantly occurred in this matter would in fact be
considered fraud by any court.”
);
 In re Chevron Corp.
, Nos. 1:10-mc-00021-22 (JH/LFG), slip op. at 3-4
(D.N.M. Sept. 2, 2010) (“The release of many hours of the [
Crude
] outtakes has sent shockwaves through the
nation’s legal communities, primarily because the footage shows, with unflatt
ering frankness, inappropriate,
unethical and perhaps illegal conduct.”);
 In re Chevron Corp.
, No. 10-cv-1146-IEG (WMC), 2010 WL
3584520, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2010) (“There is ample evidence in the record that the Ecuadorian Plaintiffs
secretly provided information to Mr. Cabrera, who was supposedly a neutral court-appointed expert, andcolluded with Mr. Cabrera to make it look like the opinions were his own. Thus, any privilege which existed
was waived . . . .”);
 In re Chevron Corp.
, 749 F. Supp. 2d
141, 167 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (“[T]here is more than alittle evidence that [plaintiffs’ lead U.S. counsel] Donziger’s activities— 
as several courts already have held inthe context of Section 1782 applications against experts involved on the Lago Agrio plainti
ffs’ side— 
comewithin the crime-
fraud exception to both the privilege and to work product protection.”);
 In re Chevron Corp.
,
633 F.3d 153, 166 (3d Cir. Feb. 3, 2011) (“[W]e believe that this showing of [plaintiffs’ technical consultant]Villao’s dual empl
oyment is sufficient to make a prima facie showing of a fraud that satisfies the first element of the showing necessary to apply the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-
client privilege.”);
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger 
, 768 F. Supp. 2d 581, 636 (S.D.N.Y. 20
11) (“There is ample evidence of fraud in the Ecuadorian proceedings.”);
 In re Chevron Corp.
, No. cv-10-
2675 (SRC) (D.N.J. June 11, 2010), Hr’g Tr. at 43:23
-
44:1 (“As
far as the Court is concerned, the concept of an employee of a party covertly functioning as a consultant to a
court appointed expert in the same proceeding can only be viewed as a fraud upon that tribunal . . . .”); ,
Chevron Corp. v. Page
, No. RWT-11-
1942 (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2011) (“So, at the end of the day, regardless of 
how I get there, and I get there, I get to the same place by at least four or five different routes. This information
is very much discoverable. It is no longer privileged, and it is to be produced immediately.”);
 In re Chevron
 
2
fraud in the Lago Agrio Litigation has led one of Donziger’s co
-conspirators toadmit to him in a private communication that, should the fraud be exposed,
“apart from destroying the proceedi
ng, all of us, your attorneys, might all go to
 jail” for their misconduct.
2
 In furtherance of the scheme, the perpetrators of the Lago Agrio fraudhave sought to enlist public figures to help pressure Chevron. Donziger and hisassociates have targeted Comptroller DiNapoli, and have succeeded in gettinghis support apparently through an illicit and unethical
quid pro quo
 arrangement. Donziger and his associates have given DiNapoli considerationnot available to the general public, including large monetary contributions to
DiNapoli’s campaign in excess of $60,000— 
a move that Donziger himself 
worried “might not be a great idea.”
3
In apparent exchange for thisconsideration, Donziger and his associates have received the unwaveringsupport of DiNapoli and his office. The timeline attached as Appendix A to this complaint illustrates the principal actions DiNapoli has taken on behalf of Donziger and his associates, and the contributions that appear to have obtainedthese actions. DiNapoli has made numerous public statements denouncingChevron, and has opened the doors of his office to the perpetrators of the Lago
Corp
., No. 11-24599-CV, slip op. at 4, 26 (S.D.
Fla. June 12, 2012) (“Chevron has obtained mounds of evidence, in multiple § 1782 proceedings, that suggests that the judgment itself was also ghostwritten.”);
Chevron Corp. v. Donziger 
, No. 11-cv-
00691, slip op. at 97 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012) (“[T]he LAPs’
procurement of the termination of judicial inspections, the adoption of the global assessment, and the
appointment of Cabrera all unquestionably were tainted. The secret participation of the LAP team in Cabrera’s
activities and its secret drafting of t
he bulk of Cabrera’s report were tainted as well.”).
 
2
3

Activity (9)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
mfallon27 liked this
mfallon27 liked this
mfallon27 liked this
mfallon27 liked this
liveclive304393 liked this
cara12345 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->