republica del ecuador - the amazon post · lago agrio, tuesday, january 15, 2013 . to: pablo...

REPUBLICA DEL ECUADOR www.funcionjudicial-sucumbios.gob.ec

Cause No: 21351-2012-0307 Judicial Mailbox: 78 Judge: ALFONSO ISAAC BUITRON CEVALLOS Lago Agrio, Tuesday, January 15, 2013 TO: PABLO FAJARDO ET AL. Dr./Attorney: PABLO ESTENIO FAJARDO MENDOZA In Cause No. 21351-2012-0307, CORDOVA HUANCA OCTAVIO ISMAEL, NICOLAS SAMANIEGO AGILA v. PABLO FAJARDO ET AL., there is the following: FIRST LABOR COURT OF SUCUMBIOS.- Lago Agrio, Tuesday, January 15, at 1:57 p.m.- HAVING REVIEWED: OCTAVIO ISMAEL CORDOVA HUANCA has filed a suit for the protection of constitutional rights and interim precautionary measures against Messrs. PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA, LUIS FRANCISCO YANZA ANGAMARCA, JULIO MARCELO PRIETO MENDEZ AND JUAN PABLO SAENZ MEN, alleging that: “He is one of the Ecuadorian citizens residing in the Provinces of Orellana and Sucumbios who has pursuant the well-known suit for environmental damage against the American company Chevron Corporation, in which such company was ordered to pay more than $19 billion for the remediation of the Ecuadorian Amazon. That the attorneys who represent him in the suit, as well as other closely-related proceedings, are Messrs. Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, Julio Marcelo Prieto Mendez and Juan Pablo Saenz Mena. In turn, Mr. Luis Francisco Yanza Angamarca serves as coordinator of the Assembly of People Affected by Texaco, a body created by the communities in the area for the purpose of overseeing, coordinating and organizing the conduct of the suit. In some cases, the relationship existing between the plaintiffs in the suit and these people goes back 20 years. That during the long years in which the defendants have maintained their relationship with them, the plaintiffs in the suit, they have been compiling and producing thousands of documents necessary for defending their position and interests in the Suit. This information is extremely delicate, since it reflects all of the legal options, plans and strategies that the defendants have prepared in their ongoing battle against Chevron in defense of their interests. Particularly significant are the documents that reflect the plaintiffs’ future strategic plans, which are vital for the process of the enforcement and collection of the judgments that have been issued in the case and ratified by the Ecuadorian judicial system. That these thousands of documents that the defendants have been producing and compiling in conducting their legal representation in the suit consist of letters, e-mails, IP addresses linked to the Internet use of dozens of persons, minutes, logs, transcriptions, newspapers, information about third parties, legal and scientific memoranda, various investigation documents, planning sheets, legal documents (drafts and final versions), tape or digital recordings, web pages, blogs, social network pages and, in general, any sort of information that has been generated by, or is known to, the defendants in the exercise of representation, the plaintiffs in the suit, regardless of the nature of the medium in which they have been recorded, without any exception. That for several years, Chevron Corporation has mounted a series of violent judicial attacks in the US courts directly against them, the plaintiffs, and with even more force against the defendants and some other of their representatives. That the defendants have informed the plaintiffs in the suit that there is an action brought by Chevron before the Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan, of the Second District of the State of New York, by which this judicial official has demanded that the Defendants hand over a large part of the information, as part of an American judicial procedure called “discovery,” which

Case 1:11-cv-00691-LAK Document 734-1 Filed 01/23/13 Page 2 of 10

Plaintiff's Exhibit PX 427 p. 1 of 9

11 Civ. 0691 (LAK)

PLAINTIFF’SEXHIBIT427

has no equivalent in Ecuadorian law. This judge says that he has jurisdiction over the Defendants, and, therefore, he is trying to have them, in compliance with the supposed rules of the US, hand over the information about their clients and principals. That in the past, he has repeatedly stated to the Defendants that they do not have his consent, as one of their clients, to share any information that might jeopardize the rights that are at stake in the suit. However, he is afraid that will end up yielding to the pressure by judge Kaplan. That the purpose of this lawsuit is to prevent the defendants from handing over any part of the information to the Chevron Corporation. The possibility of such information becoming public and/or falling into Chevron's hands represents an extremely serious threat to their rights and to those of the other plaintiffs in the suit. That, according to the plaintiff, the right of access to justice and effective, impartial and expeditious protection of the rights established in Art. 75 of the Constitution would be violated, and the right of defense, Subsection c) of Section 7 of Art. 76 of the Constitution, and Section 21 of Art. 66 thereof, would also be violated. The public hearing having been held and the parties having been heard, the case is ripe for decision, and to render such, the following conclusions of law have been reached: ONE.- This action has been processed as provided in Section 3 of Art. 86 of the Constitution, in accordance with Arts. 13, 14 and 16 of the above-referenced Law of Judicial Guarantees and Constitutional Control, without noting any failure to comply with formal requirements that might influence the decision in the case, and, therefore, it is declared to be procedurally valid. TWO.- The action for protection of constitutional rights contemplated in the new constitution can be brought by any person, group of persons, community, people or nationality, in accordance with Section 1 of the same Article 86 of the Constitution, and, therefore, according to the provisions of Art. 75 thereof: “Every person has the right to access to justice and effective, impartial and expeditious protection of their rights and interests, at no cost, subject to the principle that exceptions to judgments must be made at once and the principle of speedy trial, and in no event shall he be denied the right to defend his interest. The failure to comply with court decisions shall be punished as provided by law.” Since this suit was filed by a person directly interested or harmed by the intended violation of his constitutional rights and guarantees, the plaintiff has standing to bring this case. THREE.- Subsections a), b), c) and 1) of Section 7 of Art. 76 of the Constitution provide: “No one may be denied the right to defend his interests in any phase or stage of the proceeding; To have the time and means adequate for the preparation of his defense; To be heard at the appropriate time and on equal terms”; and Art. 88 thereof provides that “the purpose of the suit for constitutional protection is the direct and effective protection of the rights recognized in the Constitution, and it may be filed whenever there is a violation of constitutional rights by acts or omissions of any non-judicial public authority, against public policies, if they involve the deprivation of the enjoyment or exercise of constitutional rights, and when the violation is being committed by a private person, if the violation of the right causes severe harm, if inadequate public services are being provided, if action is being take by delegation or under a concession, or if the affected party is in a situation of subordination, defenselessness or discrimination.” FOUR.- Based on the above-stated constitutional parameters, the undersigned judge, after hearing the defendants at the public hearing held on January 11, 2013, the record of which appears on pages 129 et seq. in the record, with regard to the principal action, finds that the plaintiff ratified the factual and legal bases of the suit for the protection of constitutional rights. The defendants, in turn, stated, with regard to the principal action, that: “Your Honor, first I would like to state that I am appearing on my own behalf, and, in turn, representing my attorney colleagues Juan Carlos Saenz and Julio Prieto, as well as representing Mr. Luis Yanza, and that I must admit that it is true that Chevron Corporation, through judge Lewis Kaplan, have tried, since 2011, to compel both of us the attorneys PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA JULIO PRIETO MENDEZ JUAN PABLO SAENZ Mr. LUIS YANZ and the organization called the “Amazon Defense Front” and the “Living Forest Corporation” to hand over the all of the information pertaining to the suit that the inhabitants of this part of the country have won in the lawsuit against Chevron Corporatation. It is also true that I am the Counsel of Record for the plaintiffs in the suit against Chevron Corporation, and therefore I represent, as counsel of record, the plaintiffs, one of whom is Mr. OCTAVIO ISMAEL CORDOVA HUANCA. The information that the oil company is demanding



was perfectly described in detail by the opposing party and it is obvious that it seriously threatens the rights of the inhabitants of the Ecuadorian Amazon. The petition that Chevron is pursuing in the American courts, which the Federal Judge Lewis Kaplan has echoed, is being made through two of my clients who have abided by the American legal system, I should clarify that my clients in the principal lawsuit are 47 people and, therefore, the information that we have does not belong solely and exclusively to the two people who abided by the American legal systems rather it belongs to all of the plaintiffs in the principal lawsuit, one of whom is Mr. Octavio Cordova. Those of us attorneys who represent the plaintiffs in the main lawsuit have actively defended our clients’ rights, and we have submitted abundant legal information to judge Kaplan of New York to inform him: first, that he does not have jurisdiction over any Ecuadorians who do not reside in, or have a nexus with, the State of New York, secondly, we have informed him that there are legal rules in Ecuador that prohibit us from violating professional secrecy, the right to confidentiality, effective judicial protection, among others, those documents to which I refer, I hand over to you, your honor, for them to be considered at the time you make your decision. However, both the oil company Chevron and Judge Lewis Kaplan insist with the order that we hand over such information, they have submitted statements by Ecuadorian lawyers in New York by which they are trying to show that we defendants do have the obligation to hand over the information sought. I also submit to you a copy of the report by the expert Dr. Gustavo Romero Ponce, who, in his arguments, favors the Chevron oil company’s theory. To conclude, faced with the strong pressure to which we, the attorneys and social leaders, have been subjected in this lawsuit, and in view of an increasing threats, even to punish our attorneys in United States, we have discussed this matter and decided to hand over the information that Chevron is demanding, with which it is obvious that the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs and the other plaintiffs in the principal case are being violated. Documentation is being submitted to the court by both the plaintiff and defendant, with a translation into Spanish. FIVE.- The plaintiff, in bringing a suit for the protection of constitutional rights, must prove that rights referred to that might be violated will cause him serious harm, which has been proven in this case. Therefore, it is appropriate to apply Section 21 of Art. 66, and Arts. 75 and 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador referred to by the plaintiff. On pages 51 et seq. of the record and in the public hearing, the plaintiff submitted documentation with a translation into Spanish by Miss Linette Alexandra Granja Dueñas, in which it appears that the Judge of the United States of America Lewis A. Kaplan of the second district of the State of New York demands our confidential information in favor of his jurisdiction, this has been requested from our attorneys PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA, JULIO MARCELO PRIETO, JUAN PABLO SAENZ AND LUIS FRANCISCO YANZA PARRA to hand over to such judge any information that they have and that is ours and mine, of course, consisting of letters, e-mails, IP addresses, linked with the Internet use of many people minutes logs, transcriptions newspapers, information about third parties, legal and scientific memoranda investigation documents, planning documents, magnetic and digital recordings, web pages, social network pages and any information that is available to him regarding the lawsuit against Chevron. SIX. – Therefore, it is appropriate to apply Section 21 of Art. 66 and Arts. 75 and 76 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador. With regard to the interim precautionary measures referred to by the plaintiff, they are based on Art. 26 et seq. of the Law of Jud. Guar. and Const. Cont. Based on the above-stated conclusions of law, ADMINISTERING JUSTICE ON BEHALF OF THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE OF ECUADOR AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ECUADOR, THE SUIT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION, brought Mr. OCTAVIO ISMAEL CORDOVA HUANCA against PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA, LUIS FRANCISCO YANZA ANGAMARCA, JULIO MARCELO PRIETO MENDEZ and JUAN PABLO SAENZ MENA, is ACCEPTED, and, therefore, THE DEFENDANTS: PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA, LUIS FRANCISCO YANZA ANGAMARCA, JULIO MARCELO PRIETO MENDEZ and JUAN PABLO SAENZ MENA, ARE ORDERED NOT TO DELIVER to Judge Lewis A. Kaplan of second district of the State of New York, or to anyone, any information that they have, which consists of: letters,



e-mails, IP addresses linked to the Internet use of dozens of people, minutes, logs, transcriptions, newspaper, information about third parties, legal and scientific memoranda, various investigation documents, planning documents, legal documents (drafts and final versions), magnetic and digital recordings, web pages, social network pages and, in general, any type of information that has been generated by, or is known to, the DEFENDANTS by their representation and that is available to them regarding the lawsuit against Chevron. No award of costs. No award of attorneys’ fees. IT IS ORDERED THAT NOTICE BE GIVEN OF THIS ORDER AND THAT IT BE COMPLIED WITH.- /s/ ATTY. ALFONSO BUITRON, ACTING JUDGE.

Which I communicate to you for all legal purposes and effects

[signature]

ATTY. MARY ELIZABETH PEREZ VACA, (ACTING) CLERK





THE ST A TE OF TEXAS

COUNTY OF HARRIS

(~ LANGUAGE SOllJl'IONS

AFFIDAVIT OF ACCURACY

I hereby certify that the translation performed on Wednesday, the 23rd of January 2013, job number H-21193 Sentencia 2013-01-15, No. Causa 2012-0307 of 1._pages is a true and accurate translation to the best of our knowledge into English of the document written in Spanish. l further certify that the translator named below is a professional legal translator, a member of the American Translators Association and qualified to render an accurate translation.

Robert Arnett Translator

BEFORE ME, the undersigned Notary Public, appeared Lavinia Dupu, having first been placed under oath, she stated that she is the person whose signature appears affixed to the foregoing statement, and she further stated under oath, that the contents of said statement are of her personal knowledge, true and correct.

Sworn to before me this 23rd day of January 2013.

Nfk~~ My commission expires: August 25, 2013

2500 Tanglewilde, Suite 490 Houston, TX 77063

e LETICIA SIFUENTES MY COMMISSION EXPIRES

•• AUGUST 25, 2013

Phone/7 13.661 .9553 Facsimile/7 13.661.4398



REPUBLICA DEL ECUADOR www.funcionjudicial-sucumbios.gob.ec

Juicio No: 21351 -201 2-0307 Resp: ALFONSO ISAAC BUITRON CEVALLOS

Lago Agrio, martes 15 de enero del 2013 A: PABLO FAJARDO Y OTROS Dr./Ab. : PABLO ESTENIO FAJARDO MENDOZA

Casilla No: 78

En el Juicio To. 21351 -2012-0307 que sigue CORDOVA HUANCA OCTAVIO ISMAEL, JCOLAS S MAJ\TIEGO AGILA en contra de PABLO FAJARDO Y OTROS, hay lo

siguiente:

JUZGADO PRIMERO DEL TRABAJO DE SUCUMBIOS.- Lago Agrio, martes 15 de enero del 2013, las 13h57.- VISTOS: OCTAVIO ISMAEL CORDOVA HUANCA, deduce acci6n de protecci6n y medidas cautelares en contra de los sefiores PABLO F AI ARDO MENDOZA,L IS FRANCISCO Y ZA A.'\GAMARCA. JULIO MARCELO PRIETO YfE fDEZ Y JUA,__ '\1 PABLO SAE:.JZ \ I.E:-;A, indicando que: "Es uno de los ciudadanos ecuatorianos residentes en las provincias de Orellana y Sucumbios, que ha seguido el notorio juicio por dafios ambientales contra la comparlia estadounidense Chevron Corporation, en el cual se orden6 a esta compaiiia el pago mas de $19 mil millones para la remediaci6n de la Amazonia ecuatoriana. Que los abogados que le representan en el juicio, asi como en otros procesos estrechamente vinculados, son los senores Pablo Fajardo Mendoza, Julio Marcelo Prieto Mendez y Juan Pablo Saenz Mena. A su vez, el senor Luis Francisco Yanza Angamarca funge de coordinador de la Asamblea de Afectados por la Texaco, organismo creado por las comunidades de la zona con la finalidad de controlar, coordinar y organizar el desarrollo del juicio. En algunos casos, la relaci6n existente entre los demandantes del juicio y estas personas data desde hace 20 afios atras. Que durante los largos afios en que los accionados han mantenido su relaci6n con ellos, los demandantes del juicio, han ido recopilando y produciendo millares de documentos necesarios para la defensa de su posici6n e intereses en el Juicio. Esta informaci6n es extremadamente delicada, ya que refleja la totalidad de las opciones, planes y estrategias legales que los accionados han preparado en su continua batalla contra Chevron en defensa de sus intereses. Especial relevancia tienen los documentos que reflejan planes estrategicos futuros de los accionantes, vitales para el proceso de ejecuci6n y cobro de las sentencias que sobre el juicio han sido dictadas y ratificadas por la justicia ecuatoriana. Que estos millares de documentos que los accionados han ido produciendo y recopilando en el desarrollo de su representaci6n legal en el juicio, consisten en cartas, correos electr6nicos, direcciones IP vinculados con el uso de internet de docenas de personas, actas, bitacoras, transcripciones, diarios, informaci6n sobre terceras personas, memorandos legales y cientificos, documentos de investigaci6n varios, hojas de planificaci6n, escritos legales (borradores ·y versiones finales) , grabaciones magnetof6nicas o digitales, paginas web, blogs, paginas de redes sociales y en general todo tipo de informaci6n que haya sido generada o conocida por los accionados en su ejercicio de representaci6n, los demandantes del juicio, independientemente de la naturaleza del medio de soporte en el que se encuentre, sin excepci6n alguna. Que desde hace varios afios, la compafiia Chevron Corporation ha dirigido una serie de violentos ataques judiciales en las cortes de los EEUU directamente contra ellos, los demandantes y con aun mas fuerza en contra de los accionados y otros de sus representantes. Que los accionados han comunicado a los demandantes del juicio que existe una acci6n iniciada por Chevron ante el Juez Federal Lewis Kaplan, del Segundo Distrito del Estado de Nueva York, mediante la cual este operador de justicia ha requerido a los Accionados que entreguen gran parte de la informaci6n, dentro de un procedimiento judicial estadounidense denominado "discovery" que



r

no tiene un equiYal o. E:~" j "Z ...; ; ~.,. :e= =- ::: ~ • · sdicci6n sobre los Accionados, por lo entreguen la info a 10

repetidamente a lo _-\ ionados e no u n o u ons n o omo uno de sus representados, de compartir informa i6n que pueda poner en p li_ o los derechos que estan en juego en el juicio. o obstante, teme que terminen por ceder ante las presiones del juez Kaplan. Que la presente demanda tiene como objeto impedir que los accionados entreguen a Chevron Corporaci6n cualquier parte de la informaci6n. La posibilidad de que dicha informaci6n se haga publica y/o llegue a manos de Chevron representa una gravisima amenaza a sus derechos y al de los demas demandantes en el juicio. Que segun el accionante, se violaria el derecho al acceso a la justicia y a la tutela efectiva, imparcial y expedita de los derechos consagrados en el Art . 75 de la Constituci6n, se menoscabaria el derecho a la defensa, el literal c) del numeral 7 de! Art . 76 de la Constituci6n, el numeral 21 del Art. 66 ibidem. Efectuada la audiencia publica y escuchada las partes, siendo este el estado de resolver, para hacerlo se considera: PRIMERO.- A esta acci6n se le ha dado el tramite establecido en el numeral 3 del Art. 86 de la Constituci6n, en concordancia con los Arts. 13 , 14 y 16 de la Ley Organica de Garantias Jurisdiccionales y Control Constitucional antes referida, sin que se observe omisi6n de solemnidad alguna que pueda influir en la decision de la causa, por lo que se declara su validez procesal. SEGLT>.1DO .La acci6n de prote ion e as garant' - ons i ·o s ~ ·· e ·o ordenamiento constitucional puede ser propuesta por cualquier persona, grupo de personas, comunidad, pueblo o nacionalidad, conforme lo establecido en el numeral ldel mismo articulo 86 de la Carta Magna, por lo tanto y conforme a lo previsto en el Art. 75 Ibidem: "Toda persona tiene derecho al acceso gratuito a la justicia y a la tutela efectiva, imparcial y expedita de sus derechos e intereses, con sujeci6n a los principios de inrnediaci6n y celeridad, en ningun caso quedara en indefensi6n. El incumplimiento de las resoluciones judiciales sera sancionado por la Ley''. Al haber sido el presente caso, presentado por la persona directamente interesada o agraviada por la pretendida violaci6n de sus derechos y garantias constitucionales, es legitima la comparecencia de la accionante. TERCERO.- El literal a), b), c) y 1) del numeral 7 del Art. 76 de la Constituci6n establece: "Nadie podra ser pri\·ado del derecho a la defensa en ninguna etapa o grado de! procedimiento: Contar con el tiempo y on los edios a e uado para la preparaci6n de su defensa; Ser escuchado en el momenta oportuno y en igual ad de condiciones" ; y el Art. 88 ibidem determina que "la acci6n de protecci6n tendra por objeto el amparo directo y eficaz de los derechos reconocidos en la Constituci6n, y podra interponerse cuando exista una vulneraci6n de derechos constitucionales, por actos u omisiones de cualquier autoridad publica no judicial; contra politicas publicas cuando supongan la privaci6n del goce o ejercicio de los derechos constitucionales; y cuando la violaci6n proceda de una persona particular, si la violaci6n del derecho provoca dano grave, si presta servicios publicos impropios, si actua por delegaci6n o concesi6n, o si la persona afectada se encuentra en estado de subordinaci6n, indefensi6n o discriminaci6n''. CUARTO.- Sustentado sobre los parametros constitucionales sefialados, el suscrito juez, luego de escuchar a los acc ionados en la audiencia publica efectuada el 11 de enero de! 2013 que obra a fojas 129 de autos, en lo principal, el accionante se rati fica en los fundamentos de hecho y de derecho de la acci6n de protecci6n. La parte accionada, por su parte dice en lo principal que: " Senor Juez primero indico que comparezco por mis propios derechos y a su vez en representaci6n de mis colegas abogados Juan Carlos Saenz y Julio Prieto asi como tambien en representaci6n del senor Luis Yanza, debo admitir que efectivamente la empresa Chevron Corporation mediante el juez Lewis Kaplan han pretendido desde el ano 2011 , que tanto los abogados PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA JULIO PRIETO MENDEZ JUAN PABLO SAENZ el senor LUIS Y ANZA asi como tambien la organizaci6n denominada Frente de Defensa de la Amazonia y la Corporaci6n Selva Viva procedamos a entregar toda la informaci6n referente al litigio que pobladores de esta zona del pais le han ganado a la empresa Chevron Corporatation . Es tambien verdad que yo soy el Procurador Comun y Judicial de los demandantes en el litigio contra Chevron Corporation por ende represento como procurador a los demandantes de los cuales es parte el senor OCTAVIO ISMAEL CORDOVA HUANCA. La informaci6n que requiere la empresa petrolera fue



perfectamente detallada por mi contraparte y es evidente que amenaza gravemente los derechos de pobladores de la amazonia ecuatoriana. La petici6n que realiza Chevron ante cortes Norte americanas de las cuales el Juez Federal Lewis Kaplan se ha hecho eco la realiza a a traves de dos de mis clientes que se sometieron al sistema judicial norte americano, debo aclarar que nuestros clientes en el litigio principal son 47 personas , por lo tanto la informaci6n que disponemos no pertenece unica y exclusivamente a las dos personas que se sometieron al sistemas judi ial norte americano sino que esta pertenece a todos los demandantes en el juicio

rin el - art el nor 0 aYio C6rdoYa . Los abogados que representamos a los demandantes en el juicio principal, hemos realizado una activa defensa de los derechos de nuestros clientes, y hemos presentado abundante informaci6n juridica al juez Kaplan de Nueva York hacifodole conocer: primero que no tiene jurisdicci6n sobre personas ecuatorianas que no residimos ni tenernos 'in ulo alguno con el estado de Nueva York segundo le hemos indicado

ue en el E uador e. · · e ormas juridicas que nos prohiben violar el secreto profesional. El ere ho a la on.ii en i i a . l ru ela judicial efectiYa entre otros esos documentos a los que

h go re ren ia o en ego a e eflor juez para que sean considerados al momento de re-olYer. in embargo n o la petrol ra Che\Ton como el Juez Lewis Kaplan insisten con la orden para que entregamos tal informaci6n, ban presentado en ueva York afirmaciones de Abogados ecuatorianos con lo que intentan demostrar que los accionados si estamos en la obligaci6n de entregar la informaci6n solicitada .Tambien entrego a usted copia del informe del experto Dr. GustaYo Romero Ponce quien con sus argumentos favorece la teoria de la petrolera C e\TOn Para o luir an una fuen presi6n q e es amos re ibiendo los abogados y dirigentes so iales e e e li i~ ·o , y ante a re ie e amenaza , incluso con sancionar a nuestros aboga o- en Estados L"nido de "\"orte A.merica hemos discutido y resuelto entregar la informa i6n qu Che\Ton requiere, on lo cual es nidente que se estan violando derechos onstitucionale del accionante y lo otro dernandantes en el juicio principal. Se entrega al juez o enta ion tanto la pane a ionante omo la accionada con traducci6n al espafiol.

QGL\10. - El a ionante, al hacer uso de la acci6n de protecci6n debe probar que los derechos aludidos que puedan ser iolados, le produzcan dafio grave, lo cual en el presente caso se ha probado. De ahi que, resulta pertinente aplicar el numeral 21 del Art. 66, Art. 75 y 76 de la Constituci6n de la Republica aludidos por el accionante. Que a fojas 51 de autos y dentro de la audiencia publica el accionante ha presentado documentaci6n con traducci6n al espafiol por la senorita Linette Alexandra Granja Duenas En la cual consta que el Juez de los Estados Unidos de Norte America Lev,:is A. Kaplan del segundo distrito del estado de Nueva York reclama informaci6n confidencial nuestra a favor de su jurisdicci6n, en este sentido se ha solicitado a nuestros abogados PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA, JULIO MARCELO PRIETO, JUAN PABLO SAENZ Y LUIS FRANCISCO YANZA PARRA para que entreguen a dicho juez toda la informaci6n que ellos mantienen y que es nuestra y mia por supuesto consistente en cartas, correos electr6nicos, direcciones IP , vinculadas con el uso de internet de muchas personas actas bitacoras, transcripciones diarios , informaci6n sabre terceras personas, memorandos legales y cientificos documentos de investigaci6n, planificaci6n, grabaciones magnetof6nicas y digitales, paginas web, paginas de redes sociales y toda la informaci6n que dispusiere sabre el juicio a Chevron. SEXTO.- De ahf que, resulta pertinente aplicar el numeral 21 del Art. 66, Art. 75 y 76 de la Constituci6n de la Republica. En cuanto a las medidas cautelares aludidos por el accionante se amparan en el Art. 26 y siguientes y tambien el 41 de la LOGJCC. Por las consideraciones expuestas, ADMINISTRANDO JUSTICIA EN NOMBRE DEL PUEBLO SOBERANO DEL ECUADOR Y POR AUTORIDAD DE LA CONSITUCION Y LAS LEYES DE LA REPUBLICA, se ACEPTA LA ACCION DE PROTECCION CONSTITUCIONAL propuesta por el senor OCTAVIO ISMAEL CORDOVA HUANCA en contra de PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA, LUIS FRANCISCO Y ANZA ANGAMARCA, JULIO MARCELO PRIETO MENDEZ y JUAN PABLO SAENZ MENA por lo consiguiente SE ORDENA A LOS ACCIONADOS : PABLO FAJARDO MENDOZA, LUIS FRANCISCO YANZA ANGAMARCA, JULIO MARCELO PRIETO MENDEZ y JUAN PABLO SAENZ MENA, NO ENTREGAR al Juez Lewis A. Kaplan del segundo distrito del estado de Nueva York, ni a persona alguna, toda la informaci6n que ellos mantienen y que consiste: en cartas, correos



r

electr6nicos, direcciones IP Yinculados con el uso de internet de docenas de personas, actas, bitacoras, transcripciones, diario , informaci6n sabre ter eras personas, memorandos legales y cientificos, documento de inYe tiga i6n Yario , hojas lanifi a i6n. e ritos legales( borradores y versiones finales), graba iones ma_ etof6ni as o digitale , pagin we , logs, paginas de redes sociales y en general T odo ti po info a i6n que ha ya sido generada o conocida por los ACCIONADOS en el ejercicio de su presentaci6n y que dispusieren sabre el juicio a Chevron. Sin costas. Sin honorarios que reg . NOTIFIPUESE Y CUMPLASE.- f) .- AB. ALFONSO BUITRON, JUEZ ENCARGADO ~. L

Lo que co a ust para los fines de ley.

AB. BETH PEREZ VACA TARIA (E)

republica del ecuador - the amazon post · lago agrio, tuesday, january 15, 2013 . to: pablo...

Documents