Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/67951167/Expert-Report-Robert-Leonard
Timestamp: 2017-02-20 19:25:00
Document Index: 506179766

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1782', '§4', 'art 4', 'art 3', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', 'art 1']

Expert Report- Robert Leonard BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinREPORT OF ROBERT A. LEONARD, PH.D.BACKGROUND
I am a Professor of Linguistics; the Chair of Department; the Director of the Institute for Forensic Linguistics, Threat Assessment and Strategic Analysis; and the Director of the Graduate Program in Forensic Linguistics at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I received my Ph.D. in linguistics from Columbia University in 1982 with research specialties in Semantic Theory-a-theory ofmeaning->- and Sociolinguistics ..I received my B.A. from Columbia College in 1970, where I was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and graduated with honors, and received my M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. from Columbia Graduate School, where I was a Faculty Fellow. I was awarded a Fulbright Fellowship to conduct the research for my dissertation. At Columbia, I studied Lexicography ("dictionary~making") with one of the foremost American lexicographers, Allen Walker Read, who continued to collaborate with me for years afterwards. I serve as a member of the Editorial Board of the Oxford University Press series Language and the Law. I am also a reviewer of the Professional Staff Congress of the City University of New York Research Award Program. In this capacity, I review applications for research grants made to the City University of New York. I have been qualified as an Expert in Linguistics in state courts in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Nevada and Pennsylvania, and in federal district court in Newark, New Jersey. I have been admitted to the Expert Panel of the 18B Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York.
I have provided expert opinions to a wide range of clients, such as Apple, Inc., the Prime Minister of Canada, the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force, and the FBI, in cases dealing with a wide range of forensic linguistic issues. The FBI has employed me to work on specific cases, to train their agents, and to analyze and advise on their Communicated Threat Assessment Database (CT AD), a "computerized database/software program designed to be the primary repository for all communicated threats and other criminally orientedcommunications (COC)" within the FBI and the United States. Its
purpose is to assist Behavioral Analysis Unit-I (Counterterrorism and Threat Assessment) agents in the assessment and analysis of all submitted communications (Forensic Linguistic Services at the Behavioral Analysis Unit-t, p.16). I have trained British law enforcement agencies, consulted on domestic terrorism for two law enforcement agencies on the West Coast, analyzed murder-related letters for the Pennsylvania State Police, analyzed testimony that resulted in perjury indictments for the DA in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, have traced threatening letters for the Baltimore Police and the NYPD Hate Crimes Task Force, have traced bomb-threat calls to the Nassau County, New York courthouse, and have consulted on a number of other criminal cases at the request of law enforcement throughout the United States. My compensation in this matter is $600 per hour for live testimony and $400 per hour for work other than live testimony. I have no financial interest whatsoever in the outcome of this case. My Curriculum Vitae, which includes a listing of my publications and a list of cases in which I have provided expert testimony in the past six years, are attached as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LINGUISTICS
Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Linguists-as all scientists-seek to identify
discernible patterns in the empirical evidence that we study. Bullets do not randomly issue from firearms. Similarly, words are not randomly found to issue from the keyboards and mouths of speakers of English or any other language. Language adheres to patterns; these patterns are the subject of systematic observation by scientific linguists. Linguists systematically observe patterns of data, and, like all scientists, build theories that explain and predict those patterns through the construction and testing of hypotheses. The principles that emerge from linguistic analysis are published in professional journals that are vetted prior to publication and are subject to peer review which comments upon and tests the hypotheses contained therein. The linguistic principles and analytical procedures that I have applied in my analysis in this matter spring from this scientific, peer-reviewed process.
Plagiarism is generally defined as "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own" (Oxford Online Dictionary, 2010). This includes submitting work written entirely or in part by another author and representing it as one's own regardless of whether consent has been obtained from the earlier author. In some cases, however, the repetition of multi word strings such as set phrases, idioms, proverbs, or other culturally specific phrases that occur with frequency are not considered plagiarism. For
example, the phrase "Once upon a time" occurs as a predictable set combination of words, but is readily available for anyone to use, that is, its reuse would not necessarily be considered
plagiarism due to its broad cultural connection to fairy tales. Similarly, set phrases such as "thank you" or "to whom it may concern" reoccur as set forms in specific language registers, or textual contexts, and their reuse should not in and of itself be considered evidence ofplagiarism. In linguistics, these reoccurring multiword strings are called lexical or word bundlessequences of words that commonly go together in speech or writing. So, by definition, if a writer were to use a well-established lexical bundle that a prior writer has also used, it would not necessarily constitute a case of plagiarism. WORD (LEXICAL) BUNDLES A widely cited work on this topic is Biber, D., S. Johansson, G. Leech, S. Conrad, E. Finegan.
J 999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
As a measure of what is counted as a bundle, Biber et al. set the bar for 3 and 4 word strings as those that occur more than 20 times per million words and (so the finding would not be skewed by one author's idiosyncratic use) across five different authors .. Biber's research on lexical bundles has demonstrated that J and 4 word bundles are the most common in English (e.g., "I don't know," "I don't know if," "I don't think so"), with 5 and 6 word bundles much less common (e.g., "and I said to her," "I don't know what to do"). Like 3 or 4 word strings, 5 and 6 word strings have to occur across five authors but only need to occur 10 times per million words (as opposed to 20 million for 3 and 4 word strings) in order to be considered frequent enough to qualify as a lexical bundle.
Importantly, Biber et al.'s research indicates that with strings of7, 8, or more words the number of reoccuning lexical bundles falls off quickly from 5 or 6 words. Indeed, in Biber's study none reportedly made the fulfilled the requirements. Common strings of over 6 words that do occur consist primarily of smaller lexical bundles strung together (e.g., As a result + I don't know what to wear.) Therefore, when longer strings of words are found to be exactly, or nearly exactly, the same as in another prior text--especially when there are multiple occurrences of it in a matching text-this
increases the likelihood of such co-occurrence being held to constitute plagiarism rather than being explainable by chance or as an instance of a set phrase. Research on Spanish lexical bundles is not as prolific as research on English lexical bundles. However, it has been found (e.g., Cortes, V. 2008. A comparative analysis of lexical bundles in academic history writing in English and Spanish. Corpora, 3(1): 43-57) that Spanish, like English, has 3 and 4 word lexical bundles that occur frequently (i.e., there are bundles that occur 20 times per million words across 5 authors). In fact, a recent study comparing Spanish and English bundles in academic texts found that Spanish possesses more 4 word bundles than English-English had 87 in the corpus of approximately 1,000,000 words studied and Spanish
had 163 in a similar sized corpus. This study also reported that while 21 % of the bundles were word for word translations between Spanish and English, there were many bundles in Spanish that possess one more word than in English due to the more frequent inclusion of the article (e.g., la, el, las, los) in Spanish phrases (e.g., of human rights vs. de los derechos humanos). Thus, while Spanish may possess more 5 and 6 word bundles than English, there is no evidence in the
studies I have seen of Spanish word strings of more than 7 words being considered lexical bundles. Current research therefore suggests that matches of strings of even 7 words must be treated as highly suspect for plagiarism, and strings of words longer than 7 are of course even more highly suspect. When such strings are detected, linguists examine whether alternative non-plagiaristic explanations exist, such as the strings being quotations from a common source, or set phrases common to a variety of language. For example, in this present case, a common stereotyped phrase such as "Presidents de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Nueva Loja" ("Chief Judge of the Superior Court of Nueva Loja") occurs in documents I have examined but would not be considered plagiarism even though it is 10 words long and co-occurs in the documents because it is a commonly used phrase in Ecuadorian jurisprudence, Thus, plagiarism detection involves both screening documents to deled common strings and performing a linguistic analysis of the strings to determine whether they are or are not indicative of plagiarism. For example, obviously the use of the Spanish language, in and of itself, in a set of documents is not necessarily evidence of plagiarism. Part of what it means for people to "speak: the same language" is to be able to command a common and overlapping inventory of words and grammar .. The use of scientific, technical, or legal vocabulary, in and of itself, is not necessarily evidence of plagiarism, for these vocabularies are part of the shared knowledge of the writers and readers of the documents analyzed. The use of 4,5, or 6 word bundles are by definition commonly used and learned verbatim, as are highly-encoded, well-established longer phrases
such as the above-mentioned "Presidente de la Corte Superior de Justicia de Nueva Loja"; thus, their use is also not necessarily evidence of plagiarism. But precisely overlapping word strings of the length and type that I will discuss below-stretches in the range of 20,. 30,40 words and more, arranged in the exact same order-likely cannot be
explained away as being well-known or learned verbatim, or as having been generated by chance, by multiple authors, with just those same words in just that same order. More likely, they indicate direct copying. Other evidence that I will discuss-presentational idiosyncrasies,
orthographic errors, and citation errors that occur in precisely the same form in different documents-are similarly difficult to explain, in any way other than as direct copying from one
DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS REPORT
The documents individually referenced in this report are balded below, and additional references are identified in Exhibit 3. These documents will be made available upon request. The Sentencia, the Ecuadorian Court's decision, was issued on February 14,2011 in the Lago Agrio litigation. It is contained in an Adobe Acrobat file titled "Sentencia l.pdf" and a Microsoft Word file titled"2011 02 14 08H3? Aguinda V Chevron Verdict I_spa sentenciajudgment word.doc". The document begins "JUEZ PONENTE: AB. NICOLAS ZAMBRANO
LOZADA", contains some 88,000 words, and is written in Spanish. I reference the following documents that predate the Sentencia that, to the best of my knowledge, were not filed in the Lago Agrio litigation:
The unfiled Fusion Memo was attached as "Primer Borrador Memo Fusion JPS[Nov2007].doc" to an email on November 15,2007 from Juan Pablo Saenz to several recipients including Steven Donziger. The
(juanpa§aenz@hotmaiLcom)
document begins "La fusion entre Chevron Inc. Y Texaco Inc." • The Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled Index Summary summarizes and lists certain filings made during the Lago Agrio litigation. This document, contained in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet titled "pruebas pedidas en etapa de prueba.xls", was sent as an email on January 18, 2007 from Julio Prieto (julprieto@hotmail.com) including Steven Donziger. • Another version of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled Index Summary, whose metadata identifies it as "last modified" on June 1,2007, will be referred to as the unfiled June Index Summary. This document is contained in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet titled to several recipients
"GARR-HDD-0003243.xls". • The Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled Selva Viva Data Compilation, which I understand to
be three Microsoft Excel spreadsheets containing environmental sampling data. As stated in the March 1,2011 Younger Declaration and the June 10,2011 Younger Report, the spreadsheets were produced on December I, 20 I 0 and are titled "D A00000040. xis", "DA00000041 .xls", and "DA00000042.xls". • An unfiled draft oftbe Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' Alegato-tbe in a Microsoft Word file titled "Borrador _Ale gato_Final_ Parcial_ Envi 0_ EEUU _[ 11_nov_ 201 0].docx". The document begins "CAPITULO I CUESTIONES PREVIAS", My understanding is that the Draft Draft Alegato-is contained
Alegato is an unfiled version of the position brief and argument of the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs before the lower court in Ecuador. I also reference the following filed documents in the Lago Agrio litigation: • The Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' filed Final Alegato which collectively consists of three different Alegatos filed by the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs on December 23, 2010 at IOH12, January 17,2011 at 16H55, and February 1,2011 at 14H55. The unfiled Draft Alegato is distinct from the filed Final Alegato. • The filed Lab Results, contained in Adobe Acrobat files, as referenced in the in the March 1,2011 Younger Declaration and the June 10,2011 Younger Report. • The filed Lago Agrio court record-the Record--consisting of a compilation of
documents filed by all interested parties and the court in the Lago Agrio litigation in Ecuador. I further referred to analyses done by Michael L. Younger, Director of Digital Forensics at Stroz Friedberg, and by Seth A. Leone, Assistant Director of Digital Forensics at Stroz Friedberg. The Younger analysis refers to his declaration dated March 1,2011 and his expert report dated June 10, 201 I. The Leone analysis refers to his declaration dated May 2, 2011. While this opinion refers to the above documents, there is an ongoing review which may result in the identification of additional pertinent materials from the hundreds of thousands of documents provided to me in electronic format and which I understand were produced as a result of 28 U.S.C. §1782 proceedings related to the Lago Agrio litigation.
I have been asked to render an opinion about whether or not the Sentencia, the Ecuadorian court's decision dated February 14,2011 in the Lago Agrio litigation, was "plagiarized" in whole or in part from the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled work product. As noted above, the term "plagiarism" is used in this report to mean "the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own," as defined, for example, by Oxford Online Dictionary, 201 0; thi s definiti on includes submitting work written entirel y or in part by another author and representing it as one's own, regardless of whether consent has been obtained from the earlier author. To perform this task I was assisted by Tammy Gales, Ph.D. of the University of Wisconsin, a specialist in corpus linguistics. I was also assisted by three computational language experts: David Woolls, founder and CEO ofCFL Software, Inc., and the author of the Copycatch Investigation Software program; Patrick Juola, Ph.D., of 1Computing, Inc., and of Duquesne University; and lason Brenier, Ph.D., who in addition to holding a doctorate in linguistics is a computational linguist in private practice. The three computational experts-Woolls, Brenier-performed luoIa, and
searches at my direction comparing the Sentencia to documents which I
understand were produced by the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' consultants lawyers, or affiliates. Using results from these and other searches, I examined the language evidence for plagiaristic overlap between the Sentencia and other documents. The computational experts then performed searches comparing the documents I identified as having potential plagiaristic overlap to the Lago Agrio court Record so as to evaluate whether or not the overlap was attributable to a filed document.
Based on my analysis, education, training and specific experience in the field, I conclude, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that portions of the Sentencia and the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled work product contain matching or similar word strings and strings of symbols whose presence is not explainable either as set phrases or by chance, and that those portions of the Sentencia are therefore plagiarized from Plaintiffs' unfiled work product. That is, I compared two hypotheses: • Hypothesis 1, co-occurrence of language due to common authorship-this suggests that
the co-occurring strings were plagiaristically copied from one document to the other; and • Hypothesis 2, co-occurrence of language that is explainable as set phrases (including word bundles) and/or by random chance. Analysis of the language evidence revealed a number of matches between the Sentencia and several unfiled documents that predate the Sentencia. Since we know that copying must be done at a later time from a previously existing document, I conclude that parts of the Sentencia must likely have had their origin in the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled work product. Much of the data, adduced below, such as identical or nearly identical strings of more than 90 words, identical idiosyncratic numerical ordering, and identical series of orthographic errors, militates against hypothesis 2 and supports the opinion" to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that hypothesis 1 is superior-that the co-occurrence of language between parts of the Sentencia and
the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled work product is due to common authorship. The analyses performed by Younger and Leone lend strong support to this opinion. Severa] hundred thousand documents have been analyzed, and, although analysis of the language evidence continues I have already discovered more than enough documentary evidence to
support my conclusion. In fact, many of the individual examples adduced in this report could by themselves provide sufficient support for my opinion that portions of the Sentencia were plagiaristicailycopied from the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled work product.
The object of my analysis was to determine whether the Sentencia was plagiaristically copied, in whole or in part, from Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled documents that predate the Sentencia. Selected examples are discussed below, with additional examples identified in Exhibit 4. IDENTICAL OR NEARLY IDENTICAL WORD STRINGS LINKING UNFILED
FUSION MEMO AND SENTENCIA A document with considerable plagiaristic overlap that I examined was the Fusion Memo, which was attached as "Primer Borrador Memo Fusion Jl'S [Nov2007].doc" to an email on November 15, 2007. The Fusion Memo does not to my knowledge exist as a filed document in the Lago Agrio Record. There are multiple instances of verbatim copying of word strings from the Fusion Memo to the Sentencia that do not appear to be set phrases nor explainable by chance. As illustration, Example I demonstrates a co-occurring identical or nearly identical word string of more than 90 words found in both the Sentencia and Fusion Memo. That is, there is a 95 word string from the unfired Fusion Memo that appears, with 8 interstitial words added, in the Sentencia,
Example 1. Identical or nearly identical word strings in the unfiled Fusion Memo and the Sentencia (more than 90 words) Fusion Memo: page 8 Es cierto que par norma general una empresa puede tener subsidiarias can personalidad juridica completamente distinta. Sin embargo, cuando las subsidiarias comparten el mismo nombre informal, el mismo personal, y estan directamente vinculadas con la empresa madre en una cadena ininterrumpida de toma de decisiones operativas, la separacion entre personas y patrimonios se difumina bastante. En este caso, se ha probado que en la realidad Texpet y Texaco Inc. funcionaron en el Ecuador como una operacion unica e inseparable. Las decisioues importante pasaban par diversos niveles de ejecutivos y 6rganos de decision de Texaco Inc., Sentencia: page 24 Es cierto que por norma general una empresa puede tener subsidiarias can personalidad juridica completamente distinta. Sin embargo, cuando las subsidiarias comparten el mismo nombre informal, el mismo personal, y estan directamente vinculadas con la empresa madre en una cadena ininterrumpida de toma de decisiones operativas, la separacion entre personas y patrimonios se difumioa bastante, 0 incluso llega desaparecer. En este caso, se ha probado que en la realidad Texpet y Texaco Inc. funcionaron en el Ecuador como una operaci6n unica e inseparable. Tanto las decisiones importantes como las triviales pasaban por diversos niveles de ejecutivos y 6rganos de decision de Texaco Inc.,
Note: Bolding in Example 1 IS added and indicates identical or nearly identical matches between the documents.
Example 2 demonstrates co-occurring word strings of more than 150 words found in both the Sentencia and Fusion Memo. Example 2. Identical or nearly identical word strings in the unfiled Fusion Memo and the Sentencia (more than 150 words) Fusion Memo: page 6 Cartas de funcionarios menores dirigidas a Sh ields {footnote 13}.- En este apartado se haee referencias a cartas dirigidas a Shields que se originaron en Quito, en manos de funcionarios menores que solicitaban su autorizaci6n. William Saville era un ~jeeutivo de Texpet que operaba en Quito. El envio muchas y cotidianas comunicaciones a Shields (en Nueva York) solicitando autorizaciones. Por ejemplo, Ie envia a Shields los costos estimados de la perforacion de los pozos Sacha 36 al41 (doc sIn), y solicita su aprobacion para iniciar la lieitacion de trasporte de combustibles en el oriente (PET031387). J.E.F. Caston, otro ejecutivo de la petrolera ubicado en Quito, solicita la autorizacieu de Shields para licitar varios servicios (PET020758) y para aprobar los costos estimados de instalar bombas sumergibles en cinco pozos en el campo Lago Agrio. Finalmente tenemos a Max Crawford, otro funcionario radicado en Quito, quien tam bien solicitaba periodicamente la aprobacien de Shields para diversos objetivos. Aqui se reproducen dos solicitudes para aprobar el inicio de dos licitaciones (PET035974 y doc sIr). {footnote 13} Pedidos de oficiales inferiores dirigidos a Shileds [PSV -018/1] Cuerpo 65, fojas 6855, 6856, 6860, 6861,6875,6882, 6885. Sentencia: page 21 Del mismo modo, cartas de funcionarios menores dirigidas a Shields, en el cuerpo 65, fojas 6855, 6856,6860,6861,6875,6882, 6885, donde se hace referencias a cartas dirigidas a Shields que se originaron en Quito, en manes de funcionarios menores que solicitaban su autorizaci6n como William Saville, que era un ejecutivo de Texpet que operaba en Quito, y envio muchas y cotidianas comunicaciooes a Shields (en Nueva York) solicitando autorizaciones. Por ejemplo, Ie eovia a Shields los costos estimados de la perforaeion de los pozos Sacha 36 al 41 (doc sIn), y solicita su aprobacion para iniciar la licitacien de transporte de combustibles en el Oriente (PET {space added}031387 en foja 6856). J.E.F. Caston, otro ejecutivo de la petrolera ubicado en Quito solicita la autorizacion de Shields para licitar varios servicios (PET {space added} 020758 en foja 6860) y para aprobar los costos estimados de instalar bombas sumergibles en cinco pozos en el campo Lago Agrio. Finalmente ten em os a Max Crawford, otro funcionario radicado en Quito, quien tambien solicitaba periodicamente la aprobacion de Shields para diversos objetivos (PET {space added}035974 en foja 6882, y doc sIr en foja 6885).
Note: Bolding and underlining in Example 2 are added; bolding indicates identical or nearly identical matches between the documents and underlining emphasizes the particular language feature being exemplified. Curly brackets are used to interject text or comments not in the original documents.
In addition to demonstrating the more than 150 identical or nearly identical words in the Fusion Memo and the Sentencia, both texts in Example 2 also exhibit idiosyncratic use of the references
doc sin and doc sir. These uses are unique in that they are the only examples of doc sin and doc
sir references found in the Fusion Memo and the Sentencia. Further, these appear to be matching citation errors, for no clarity is obtained by looking at the cited foja numbers-doc sin and doc sir are not found in those fojas. IDENTICA.L lDIOSYNCRATIC NUMERICAL ORDERING LINKING UNFILED
FUSION MEMO AND SENTENCIA The language evidence indicates not only verbatim apparent copying of identical or nearly identical text and references but also, as seen in xample 3 below, verbatim apparent copying of identical idiosyncratic numerical ordering. This type of overlap is clearly not attributable to the use of lexical bundles. Specifically, both the unfiled Fusion Memo and the Sentencia use the same unique numerical ordering offoja numbers, including one foja number-foja 6964-
underlined below, which is out of numerical order when compared with the rest of the foja numbers.
Example 3. Identical idiosyncratic
numerical ordering and identical or nearly identical
word strings in the un filed Fusion Memo and the Sentencia (22 words) Fusion Memo: page 5 d) Cartas y memorandos de Shields y Palmer a John McKinley (Archives Texaco Inc. y Texpet){footnote12}.~ Como se menciono antes, McKinley era otro alto ejecutivo de Texaco Inc. de quien dependian importantes aprobaciones y decisiones. Tanto Shields como Palmer mantenian un flujo constante de cartas y memos con McKinley, solicitando su aurorizacion e informandole acerca de acontecimientos importantes. {footnote 12}Comunicaciones PalmerMcKinkey y Shields-MkKinley [PSV-018/F] Cuerpo 66, fojas 6957, 6958,6964,6959, 6960, 6974! Sentencia: page 21 Existen ademas en el expediente eartas y memorandos de Shields y Palmer a John McKinley, provenientes de los archives Texaco Inc, y Texpet, En el cuerpo 66, fojas 6957,6958, 69§4, 6959, 6960,6974: Que demuestran que tanto Shields como Palmer mantenian un flujo constante de cartas y memos con McKinley, solicitando su autorizacien e informandole acerca de acontecimientos relacionados con la Concesi6n Napo,
Note: Bolding and underlining in Example 3 are added; bolding indicates iden:tical or nearly identical matches between the documents and underlining emphasizes the particular language feature being exemplified. Curly brackets are used to interject text or comments not in the original documents. As noted in bold, there is a 22 word string from the Fusion Memo that demonstrates similar text and reference document citations; further, the foja citation list in both the Fusion Memo and the Sentencia contain 6964, which is numerically out of order when compared to the ordering of the other foja numbers .. Further, the period after the number string (6957, 6958, 6964,6959,6960, 6974J is, in the Fusion Memo orthographically correct, because it is the
end of a footnote, yet in the Sentencia, there is no reason for it as it does not signal the end of a sentence; rather, it creates a sentence fragment As previously discussed, the Fusion Memo does not appear as a filed document in the Record. Additionally, my understanding is that the unfiled Draft Alegato, which was circulated in a November 11, 2010 email, is an unfiled version of the position brief and argument of the Lago 16
Agrio Plaintiffs before the lower court in Ecuador. The unfiled Draft Alegato is distinct from the filed Final Alegato. RELATIONSHIP ALEGATO The relationship between the Fusion Memo and the Draft Alegato, as seen in Excerpt I below, is that the Fusion Memo is un anexo (an appendix) to the Draft Alegato. Specifically, on page 60, in footnote 128 of the Draft Alegato, it references Anexo de Fusion (Anexo #X), which appears to indicate that the Fusion Memo was intended to be attached to the Draft Alegato to supply greater detail than is found in the Draft Alegato. In fact, the reference tojigura I (figure 1) in the Draft Alegato, which claims that Texpet is a fourth tier subsidiary to Texaco, Inc., matches the corresponding figure found in the Fusion Memo. Excerpt 1. Appendix to the unfiled Draft Alegato A continuaci6n prescntamos brevemente esta evidencia, vinculando primero a Texpet con Texaco Inc., y posteriorrnente a Texaco Inc. con Chevron Corp. {footnote 128: Dada la cantidad de documentos y argumentos disponibles, se adjunta al presente u Anexo d usi6n Anexo # , en el que se explica en mayor detalles la relacion societaria entre las tres compaiiias.} La real relacion entre T expet y Texaco Inc. Texpet es, formalrnente, una subsidiaria de cuarto nivel de Texaco Inc. (Ver figura 1 Anexo usi6 . Esto significa que, al menos en papel, existen dos empresas adicionales que separan a Texpet de Texaco Inc. Note: The purple highlighting in Excerpt I is included in the original Draft Alegato. Curly brackets are used to interject text or comments not in the original documents. BETWEEN UNFILED FUSION MEMO AND UNFILED DRAFT
IDENTICAL OR NEARLY IDENTICAL LANGUAGE LINKING UNFILED FUSION MEMO, UNFILED DRAFT ALEGATO, AND SENTENCIA, BUT NOT FILED FINAL ALEGATO The Draft Alegato contains several verbatim word strings from the Fusion Memo. Based upon my review of the filed Final Alegato, the Fusion Memo was not attached to it-indeed reference to the Fusion Memo was omitted-yet any
the Sentencia contains examples of strings of
words and symbols identical or nearly identical to both the unfiled Fusion Memo, as shown in Examples 1-3 above, and to the unfiled Draft Alegato, as shown in Example 4 below.
Example 4. Similar text and source citations in unfiled Fusion Memo, unfiled Draft Alegato, and Sentencia, but not in filed Final Alegato Fusion Memo: pages 3-4 AI igual que Shields, Bischoff participaba aetivamente en las complejas cadenas y procesos de toma de decisiones que involucraban a Texaco Inc. y Texpet. En su declaraeion juramentada Biscboff explica como los contratos del cuartel general de Texpet, ubicados en Florida, que se excedieran de USD 500.000,00 debian ser aprobados por un abogado de apellido Wissel, jefe de los abogados de Texaco Inc{footnote 8}. En este caso, vemos como la relacion entre Texpet y Texaco Inc. no estaba Iimitada a que esta sea propietaria de las acciones de aquella, Ambas trabajaban intimamente vinculadas, tomando Texaco Inc. todas las decisiones y Texpet lirnitandose a ejecutarlas. {footnote 7} Declaraclon Juramentada de Robert M. Bischoff [PSV -0 18/C] Cuerpo 63, foja 6621. {footnote 8} Ibid .. Draft Alegato: page 61 AI igual que Shields, Bischoff participaba activamente en las complejas cadenas y procesos de toma de decisiones que involucra ban a Texaco Inc. y Texpet. En su declaracien juramentada Bischoff explica como los contratos de Texpet que excedian ciertos valores debian ser aprobados por el jefe de los abogados de Texaco Inc., 10 cual ayuda a probar la forma en que Texpet dependia de Texaco Inc. Sentencia: page 24 AI igual que Shields, ha quedado clare en el expediente que Bischoff participaba activamente en las complejas cadenas y procesos de toma de decisiones que involucraban a Texaco Inc. y Texpet, En su declaracion juramentada Biscboffexplica como los contratos del cuartel general de Texpet, ubicados en Florida, que se excedieran de 500.000,00 debian ser aprobados por un abogado de apellido Wissel, jefe de los abogado de Texaco Inc. En este caso, vemos como la relacion entre Texpet y Texaco Inc. no estaba limitada a que esta sea propietaria de las acciones de aquella, sino que ambas trabajaban intimamente vinculadas, tomando Texaco Inc. todas las decisiones mientras que Texpet se limita a ejecutarlas. Final A legato: Enero 17, 2011 16H55, page 99 De heche, las instancias en las que Bischoff tom6 1amedida de marcar Ja distinction demuestran Ja inseparbilidad de las cornafiias, en lugar de desacreditarla. Por ejemplo, en una declaraclnn bajo juramento Bischoff describio como debia asegurarse de que los contratos de Texpet que superaban ciertos valores recibieran la aprobacion necesaria de los ejecutivos y de los asesores letrados de Texaco {footnote 362}. Se trata de otro ejemplo de como las estructuras de TexpetiTexaco eran, en efecto, ind iferenciables, La tradicion de ejecutivos que se desempeiian al mismo tiempo en am bas compafiias a que pasan de una a otra, una y otra vez, continua can Chevron y Texpet en la actualidad. {footnote 362: Foja 6639: Transcripci6n de la declaracion de Robert M. Bischoff(17 de agosto de J 995).
Note: Bolding In Example 4 IS added and indicates identical or nearly Identical matches interject text or comments not in the original documents.
two or more documents. Curly brackets are used to
The section of the filed Final Alegato in Example 4 that I present here for comparison to the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled documents and the Sentencia is not an exact verbatim match, but it discusses similar topics; thus I include it as the closest example
Example 4 above demonstrates identical or nearly identical word strings of approximately 50 to more than 100 words among the unfiled Fusion Memo, the unfiled Draft Alegato, and the Sentencia, but these strings are not found in the filed Final Alegato. This is evidence that there is a considerable difference between the Draft Alegato and the Final Alegato, and that the Sentencia was plagiarized from the unfiled Fusion Memo and the unfiled Draft Alegato, as opposed to relying on the filed Final Alegato. ORTHOGRAPHIC SENTENCIA An additional document analyzed for plagiaristic overlap is the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' Index
Summary, a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet titled "pruebas pedidas en etapa de prueba.xls" and
ERRORS LINKING UNFILED INDEX SUMMARY AND
sent as an email attachment on January 18,2007.
The circulation email describes the attachment
as an index of the filings made during the Lago Agrio litigation. The Index Summary consists of five worksheets labeled "INDICE", "Pruebas pedidas par SV", "PSV 018", "PSV 0 19", and "Pruebas pedidas par CVX", and was to the best of my knowledge not filed with the court. Example 5, below, shows a pattern of correct orthography, followed by an orthographic error, followed by correct orthography (ambientaleslambientaleslambiental), unfiled Index Summary and the Sentencia. repeated in both the
Example 5. Identical orthographic Lago Agrio Plaintiffs'
errors and identical or nearly identical word strings in
un filed Index Summary and Sentencia Sentencia: pages 127-128
Index Summary: Pruebas pedidas por CVX, Row 46, Column B
Que se agregue a los autos como prueba, el Se considera como prueba las paginas. 61:74 del documeoto"Informe sobre Desarrollo doeumento Informe sobre Desarrollo Humane Ecuador 1999 publicado por humano, Ecuador 1999", pubIicado por UNICEF en el que se consignan datos sobre UNICEF en el que se consignan datos sobre politicas ambientales y sostenibilidad en el politicasambientales y sostenibilidad en el Ecuador en 1990, pags. 61-74. Si bien estos · Ecuador en la decada de los noventa, Se datos registran los problemas ambientales · considera que la parte demandada aleg6 que si del Ecuador, las tecnleas de explotacien bien estos datos registran los problemas petrolera noconstan como uno de los ambientales del Ecuador, las teenicas de problemas ambientales. En las paginas 63 y explotacien petrolera no constan como uno 6~ de dicbo informe se sefiala la carencia de · de los problemas ambientaies, sin embargo, politicas ambientales en el pais en 1980 en la al revisar el documento el juzgador ha que recien se da ioieio a una insipiente encontrado bajo el titulo: [quotation omitted] politica de protecclon am bien tal. En Ja La parte demandada tambien ha alegado que pagina 66 se determina el enorme impacto en las paginas63 y 64 de dicho ioforme se ambiental de los colonos. seiiala la carencia de politicas ambientales en el pais en el decenio de 1980, cuando reeien se da inicio a una insipiente politica de protecci6n ambiental, Note: Bolding and underlining in Example 5 are added; balding indicates identical or nearly identical matches between the documents and underlining emphasizes the particular language feature being exemplified. Example 5 demonstrates an identical or nearly identical overlap of word strings, an identical pattern of correct and incorrect orthography, and further an orthographic transcription error that links the unfiled Index Summary and the Sentencia: in the unfiled Index Sununary,paginas (pages) is abbreviated, with a period (pags. 61-74.). In the Sentencia,paginas is not abbreviated
(paginas. 61-74)., but nonetheless has an unnecessary, errant period after the word paginas. One explanation is that the author of the Sentencia copied the statement from the Index, modified it to the full form,paginas, but did not delete the then spurious period.
WORD STRINGS LINKING UNFILED INDEX
SUMMARY AND SENTENCIA,
BUT NOT FOUND IN THE RECORD
In Example 6, below, the Sentencia, in four separate clauses (clauses 1-4) has the same identical or nearly identical language as the unfiled Index Summary, and not the same language as found in the filed Record. As we see in this example, in the "firstclause, the Record shows Texaco Inc. ". cuya where the Index Summary has Texaco Inc. ", documetno [sic] cuya. Here the Sentencia tracks the Index Summary (except the typographicaJ error), and not the Record. Also in this clause, the Record spells out the date, el nueve de octubre del ano dos mil uno, while the Index Summary and Sentencia both use numeric spelling, el 9 de octubre de 2001. Again, the Sentencia has the same language as the Index Summary, not the Record. Further, the present tense es is used in both the Index Summary and the Sentencia; the Record uses the past tensefue. In the second clause, the Record shows cual where the Index Summary has que. Again the Sentencia has the same language as the Index Summary, not the Record. Further, the phrase Keepep, Inc is set off by commas in the Record, but not in the Index Summary or the Sentencia, In the third clause, the Record shows competente followed by a comma. The Index Summary has no comma. Once more the Sentencia has the same language as the Index Summary, not the Record. In the fourth clause the Record shows competente, para. The Index Summary and the Sentencia has no comma there, and has the word emitida. Also, a su nueva denominacion is set off by commas in the Record, but not in the Index Summary or the Senten cia.
Example 6. Identical or nearly identical language in the unfiled Index Summary and Sentencia, but not in the filed Record Index Summary: Pruebas pedidas par SV, Rows 6-9, ColumnD
Copia integra y certificada del "Agreement and Plan of Merger", que dice relacion can "Certificate of Merger of Keepep Inc and into Texaco Inc.", documetno cuya fecha de emisi6n es el 9 de octubre de 2001.
Sentencia: page 7
foja 2132
I) Copia integra y certificada del "Acuerdo y Plan de Fusi6n", que dice relacion con el "Certificado de Fusion entre Keepep Inc y Texaco Inc.", documento cuya fecha de ernision ~ el 9 de octubre de2001;
1.- Copia integra y certificada del "Agreement and Plan of Merger", que dice relaci6n can el "Certificate Of Merger OfKeepep Inc. With And Into Texaco Inc.", {no "documento" } cuya fecha de ernision fue eJ nueve de octubre del ana dos mil uno. 2.- Copia integra y certificada del docurnento en el cual conste la autorizacion de Chevron Corporation, para que su subsidiaria, KeeQeg Inc, inrervenza en el acto a que se refiere el numeral anterior. 3.- Copia integra y certificada de la autorizacion del organo corporativo comQetente,l2ara que se proceda al cambio de denom inacion de Chevron Corporation a ChevronTexaco Corporation. 4.- Copia integra y certificada de la autorizacion del organo corporative comQetente, para que Chevron Corporation pueda incofQorar, a su nueva denominaci6n, la palabra Texaco.
Copia integra y certificada del docurnento en el que conste la autorizacion de Chevron Corporation, para que su subsidiaria {no comma} Keepep Inc {DO comma} intervenga en el Merger. Copia Integra y certificada dela autorizacion del 6rgano corporative competente {no comma} gara que se proceda aJ cambio de denominacion de Chevron Corporation a Chevron Texaco Corporation. Copia integra y certificada la autorizaci6n del organo corporative competente {no comma} emitida para que Texaco pueda incorporar {no comma} a su nueva denominaci6n {no comma} la palabra Texaco.
2) Copia integra y certificada del documento enel que conste la autorizaci6n de Chevron Corporation, para que SIl subsidiaria {noucomma} Keepep inc. {no comma} intervenga en Ja Fusi6n; 3) Copia integra y certificada de la autorizaci6n del 6rgano corporative competente {no comma} para que se proceda al cambio de denominaci6n de Chevron Corporation a Chevron Texaco Corporation; 4) Copia integra y certificada de la autorizacion del organo corporative comQetente {no comma} emitida para que Chevron pueda incorporar {no cammal a su nueva denorninacion {no comma} la palabra Texaco.
Note: Bolding and underlining In Example 6 are added; underlining emphasizes the particular language feature being exemplified and balding demonstrates identical or nearly identical language matches of those exemplified features. (For clarity of presentation, not all identical or nearly identical language matches are bolded in this example.) Curly brackets are used to interject text or comments not in the original documents.
ERRORS AND IDENTICAL
STRINGS NOT FOUND IN THE RECORD LINKING UNFILED JUNE INDEX SUMMARY AND SENTENCJA The overlaps and errors I have identified from the unfiled January Index Summary also appear in the unfiled June Index Summary, and, in one instance, Example 7, below, we find that the June Index Summary contains additional overlap with the Sentencia than that which is found in the January Index Summary. In Example 7 we see how several phrases from the Record are compiled to create a new passage of text in the unfiled Index Summaries. Further, this compilation changes the order in which the phrases appear in the Record: the phrase "muestras las tornaron al azar", appears in clause 2 on foja 2150 (v) in the Record, but is found as the last phrase of the passage in the unfiled Index
Summaries; the phrase "me contrato el Frente" appears in clause 4 on foja 2150 (v), but is found
as the first phrase of the passage in the unfiled Index Summaries; and the phrases "me imagino que", "convenio interinstitucional", and "entre Petrecuador[sic] y el Frente", although appearing last in the Record, in clause lIon foja 2151, are found in between the other two phrases in the
passage in the unfiled Index Summaries. The resultant language of the compiled passage in the unfiled Index Summaries, including the reordering of the clauses, is found nearly verbatim in the Sentencia. In addition, the June Index adds the r to Petro and the s to se, and these additions appear in the Sentencia.
Example 7. Identical or nearly identical word strings in the unfiled January and June Index Summaries and Sentencia, but not the filed Record. Record: fojas 2150 vuelta and January Index Summary: June Index Summary: Pruebas Sentencia: page 138 Pruebas pedidas par SV, Row pedidas par SV, Row 5, 2151 Columns H {"testimonio en 5, Columns H {"testimonio en fojas 2150. P75.C22"} and I fojas 2150. P75.C22"} and I Me contrato el Frente. Me imagino que hay un convenio interinstitucienal entre Pet {no "r"}o y el Frente, y por eso seguramente se nnprimin en hojas de Petro. Las muestras {no "s"}e tomaron al azar. Me eontrate el Frente. Me imagino que hay un convenio interinstitucional entre Petro y el Frente, y por eso seguramente se imprimi6 en hojas de Petro. Las muestras se tomaron al azar, "Me contrato el Frente. Me imagino que hay un convenio interinstitucional entre Petroecuador y el Frente, y por eso seguramente se imprimio en hojas de Petro". Este testigo asegura que las muestras se tomaron al azar 2) La metodologia fue la recopilacion de las muestras de suelo y agua de los diferentes campos, estas muestras las tomaron al azar y los resultados de lapsus fueron comparados con las tab las ambientales que existen en vigencra, 4) No soy asesor del Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia a mi me contrato el Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia para un trabajo tecnico a realizarse en el listado de pozos que me presentaron. 11)...de la Amazonia me imagino que las hojas en las cuales se imprimio es por el convenio interinstitucional que hay entre Petr{no "o"}ecuador y el Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia.
Note: Bolding in Example 7 is added; bolding indicates exact matches between the documents. Curly brackets are used to interject text or comments not in the original documents.
The June Index Summary, further is the source for other errors that reoccur in the Sentencia. One instance is Example 8, below, where a citation error from the June Index is repeated, two times, in the Sentencia. The document entitled "ACTA DE INSPECCION JUDICIAL POZO SHUSHUFINDI - 13" is located in the Record at fojas 74973-75003. In this example, the citation to the Acta in the June
Index Summary begins correctly at 74973; however, the citation ends incorrectly at 75013. Foja 750] 3 is actually a one-page document entitled "Razon" ("certification"). replicates the same citation error as in the unfiled June Index Summary-it at 75013 instead of 75003-and does so on two separate pages. The Sentencia states the Acta ends
Example 8. Lago Agrio Record citation errors from the unfiled June Index Summary found in the Sentencia. June Summary Index: Indice, Row 930, Columns Band D Acta de inspecci6n judicial de pozo Shushufindi 13 74973-75013 Sentencia: page 142 Sentencia: page 150 Record: fojas 74973 75003 ACTA DE INSPECCION JUDICIAL POZO SHUSHUFINDI -13 74973-75003
Concordantemente, en la inspeeeion judicial de Shushufindi 13 (ver acta en fojas 74973-75013),
En 1a inspecci6n judicial de Shushufindi 13 (foja 74973-75013),
Note: Bolding and underlining in Example 8 are added; bolding indicates identical or nearly identical matches between the documents and underlining emphasizes the particular language feature being exemplified. Curly brackets are used to interject text or comments not in the original documents. The lune Index Summary also has other citation errors, similar to the one illustrated above, that reoccur in the Sentencia. These are identified in Exhibit 4.
IDIOSYNCRATIC LANGUAGE LINKING UNFILED SELVA VIVA DATA COMPILATION AND SENTENCIA Example 9, below, draws upon the forensic analysis undertaken by Michael Younger, which supports my opinion that parts of the Sentencia were plagiaristically copied from Lago Agrio Plaintiffs' unfiled work product. Younger is a retired Special Agent in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations who served with the Cyber Division at FBI headquarters in Washington, D.C., and is also a retired Supervisory Special Agent Program Manager for the FBI s Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, and Computer Intrusion Unit
He undertook an analysis that included the fIled Lab Results found in the Record, spreadsheets including the unfiled Selva Viva Data Compilation, and the Sentencia, I understand from Younger that the Selva Viva Data Compilation is comprised of unfiled spreadsheets containing environmental sampling data. Younger reports a compelling series "in excess of] 00 specific repeated irregularities" cited in the Sentencia that he concludes were "copied, cut-and-pasted, or otherwise taken directly from the Unfiled Selva Viva Data Compilation" (Younger Report, p. J 7). He noted that a variety of idiosyncrasies link the unfiled Selva Viva Data Compilation with the Sentencia, yet were not found in the filed Lab Results. These include naming irregularities of sampling results-he notes that in both the Selva Viva Data Compilation and the Sentencia
instances are marked with _sv or _tx, but are not thus marked in the filed Lab Results. These idiosyncrasies also include the method of representing centimeter or meter-in both the unfiled
Selva Viva Data Compilation and the Sentencia instances are marked with the abbreviations within parentheses, but in the actual filed Lab Results they are not in parentheses.
idiosyncrasies further include the misrepresentation of micrograms as milligrams-in
Selva Viva Data Compilation and the Sentencia, measurements of particular substances were listed in milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg), but in the filed Lab Results those same substances were listed in micrograms per kilogram (ug/Kg), denoting a concentration a thousand times less than levels reported in the Selva Viva Data Compilation and the Sentencia. Additionally, as Younger explains, in the filed Lab Results, non-detects were clearly marked with an adjacent "less than" symbol
in front of a number that represents the minimum
concentration of a substance tbat can be detected, e.g., "<7". By contrast, tbe Selva Viva Data Compilation separated the "<" and the number into two separate, non-adjacent columns. The Sentencia did not include the "<" and thus "eliminated any non-detect results and made [for example] mercury levels appear higher and more certain than the actual filed results." Therefore, the Sentencia "relied on and subsequently misinterpreted the UnfiIed Selva Viva Data Cornplilation, rather than relying on the Filed Lab Results submitted with the Judicial Inspection Reports" (Younger Report, p. 12). Example 9 demonstrates some of these irregularities:
Example 9. Examples of irregularities between the filed Lab Results, unfiled Selva Viva Data Compilation, and Sentencia Lab Results {no sv} em m ug/Kg <7 Selva Viva Data Compilation sv (em) (m) mg/Kg 7 Senteneia sv (em) (m) mg/Kg 7
Robert A. Leonard, Ph.D. Date: June 27, 2011
More From This UserSkip carouselChevron RICO Post-Trial Reply Memo of Law Joshua Lipton Witness Statement.pdfVladimiro Alvarez Witness Statement Part 4 of 4.pdfVladimiro Alvarez Witness Statement Part 3 of 4.pdfVladimiro Alvarez Witness Statement Part 2 of 4.pdfVladimiro Alvarez Witness Statement Part 1 of 4.pdfKeith Rayner Witness Statement Part 2 of 2.pdfWeston Anson Witness Statement Part 2 of 2.pdfKeith Rayner Witness Statement Part 1 of 2.pdfWeston Anson Witness Statement Part 1 of 2.pdfSandra Elena Witness Statement.pdfSamuel Hernandez Witness Statement.pdfPatrick Juola Witness Statement.pdfJoseph Kohn Witness Statement.pdfJames Ebert Witness Statement.pdfYerim Kim Witness Statement.pdfTroy Dahlberg Witness Statement.pdfJames Spigelman Witness StatementAlberto Guerra Witness Statement - Part 2 of 3Alberto Guerra Witness Statement - Part 3 of 3Alberto Guerra Witness Statement - Part 1 of 3Robert Leonard Witness StatementAdolfo Callejas Ribadeneira Witness StatementSpencer Lynch Witness Statement Sara McMillen Witness Statement
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulExpert Report- Robert Leonard by TexacoEcuador0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadInterests: Topics, Art & DesignRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedExpert Report- William D. Di Paoloby TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Gerald McMenamin by TexacoEcuadorRebuttal Report From Expert Dr. Vladimiro Alvarez Grau by TexacoEcuadorDeclaration of Dr. David D. Caron by TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Angel R. Oquendo by TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Michael A. Kelshby TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Jan Paulssonby TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Thomas McHughby TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Brent C. Kaczmarekby TexacoEcuadorRebuttal Report- Sandra Elenaby TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Robert E. Hincheeby TexacoEcuadorSupplement to Robert Leonard by TexacoEcuadorExpert Report-Dr. Alvarezby TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- George Priest by TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Dr. William D. Bellamy by TexacoEcuadorExpert Report of Dr. Enrique Barros B. by TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Dr. Cesar Coronel Jonesby TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Michael Younger by TexacoEcuadorExpert Report- Sandra Elena by TexacoEcuadorDeclaration- Gerald R. McMenamin by TexacoEcuadorSimilar to Expert Report- Robert LeonardSkip carouselExpert Report- William D. Di PaoloExpert Report- Gerald McMenamin Rebuttal Report From Expert Dr. Vladimiro Alvarez Grau Declaration of Dr. David D. Caron Expert Report- Angel R. Oquendo Expert Report- Michael A. KelshExpert Report- Jan PaulssonExpert Report- Thomas McHughExpert Report- Brent C. KaczmarekRebuttal Report- Sandra ElenaExpert Report- Robert E. HincheeSupplement to Robert Leonard Expert Report-Dr. AlvarezExpert Report- George Priest Expert Report- Dr. William D. Bellamy Expert Report of Dr. Enrique Barros B. Expert Report- Dr. Cesar Coronel JonesExpert Report- Michael Younger Expert Report- Sandra Elena Declaration- Gerald R. McMenamin Expert Report- Robert Leonard AboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APIMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesLegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightCopyright © 2017 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaYou're Reading a Free PreviewDownloadAboutBrowse booksSite directoryAbout ScribdMeet the teamOur blogJoin our team!Contact UsSupportHelpFAQAccessibilityPressPurchase helpAdChoicesPartnersPublishersDevelopers / APILegalTermsPrivacyCopyrightMembershipsJoin todayInvite FriendsGiftsStay ConnectedCopyright © 2017 Scribd Inc. .Terms of service.Accessibility.Privacy.Mobile Site.Site Language: English中文EspañolالعربيةPortuguês日本語DeutschFrançaisTurkceРусский языкTiếng việtJęzyk polskiBahasa indonesiaAre you sure?This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?CANCELOKWe've moved you to where you read on your other device.Get the full title to continueGet the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.Restart preview{{ title }}{[ if (!is_document) { ]}{[ } ]}{[ if (is_article || is_issue) { ]}from {{ publication.name }}{[ } else { ]}{[ if (typeof authors !== 'undefined' && authors.length) { ]}{[ if (!is_document) { ]}by {[ } else { ]}uploaded by {[ } ]}{[ for (var i=0; i < authors.length; i++) { ]}{[ if (i > 0) { ]}, {[ } ]}{{ authors[i].name }}{[ } ]}{[ } else { ]}{{ publisher.name }}{[ } ]}{[ } ]}{{ length }}{[ if (typeof download_url !== undefined && download_url) { ]}Download{[ } ]}{{ title }}Collection{{ formatted_count }}View collection