Contact Information/Información de contacto

Lic. Celina García

CMAP Vicepresidente para América Latina.

Fundación CEPPA

San José, Costa Rica.

Tel.: 506-2234-0524

correo electrónico: celina@ceppacr.org

Dr. Glen T. Martin

Presidente, Constitución Mundial y Asociación Parlamentaria (CMAP )  313 Seventh Ave. Radford VA 24141,  E.E.U.U.

Universidad de Radford

correo electrónico: gmartin@radford.edu

 

Puan Sri Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, Advocates & Solicitors Malaya, No.47, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250, Luala Lumpur, Malaysia. 603-2142-8075. rajee.alagendra@gmail.com.

 

Dr. Glen T. Martin, President, World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA), Box 6943, Radford University, Radford, Virginia, USA, 24142, gmartin@radford.edu.

 

Lic. Celina Garcia, WCPA Vice-President for Latin America.

Funcacion CEPPA, San Jose, Costa Rica.  Tel. 506-2234-0524

About

The Collegium of World Judges

El Colegio Mundial de Jueces

 

Membership in the Collegium is open to retired Supreme Court or High Court Justices from all nations. Membership in the Advisory Board to the Collegium is open to currently sitting Supreme Court or High Court Justices from all nations.

The Constitution for the Federation of Earth (19.6) assigns the Provisional World Parliament the duty to initiate the infrastructure of non-military democratic world government through activating judicial, executive, and other functions that enhance the development of enforceable world law. The World Supreme Court System mandated under the Earth Constitution requires a “Collegium of World Judges” who administratively govern themselves, assigning themselves to various benches of the World Supreme Court.

World Legislative Act #48 was adopted at the 12th session of the Provisional World Parliament in Kolkata, December 2010, further enabling, through Provisional World Law, the creation of the Collegium.  Present at this session were Justice A.P. Mishra, former Supreme Court Justice of India and Puan Sri Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, internationally known Barrister from Malaysia. Saraswathy Devi has volunteered to provide administrative assistance, from her offices in Kuala Lumpur, for organizing and maintaining the Collegium.

 

Some tasks and responsibilities of the Collegium of World Judges:

 

  1. The Collegium, consisting of retired Supreme Court or High Court Judges from a number of countries with an Advisory Board made up of sitting Supreme Court or High Court Judges, can speak with a voice that commands respect concerning the need to develop enforceable world law. It can and should be independent of nation-state politics and pressures that now constrain many international legal bodies such as the ICC, the ICJ, or others associated with the UN.

 

  1. The Collegium can establish a public voice that speaks concerning world events that appear to violate or hinder the development of enforceable world law. It is a self-governing and self-developing world body with a news-worthy public presence, a body independent of nation-state politics and the U.N. system.

 

  1. The Collegium can establish provisional benches in conformance with the Earth Constitution, world legislation, and to the extent suitable, relevant international law: human rights, criminal cases, civil cases, constitutional cases, international conflicts, public cases, appellate bench, advisory bench, juvenile cases and possibly other benches.

—————————————————-

  1. El Colegio, conformado por jueces retirados del Tribunal Supremo o de la Corte Suprema de proveniente de una serie de países, con un Consejo Asesor integrado por jueces que ocupan sillas en la Corte Suprema o por jueces de la Corte Suprema, puede hablar con una voz que inspira respeto en relación con la necesidad de desarrollar una ley mundial ejecutable. Este puede y debe ser independiente de la política de la nación-estado y de las presiones que ahora restringen muchos cuerpos legales internacionales, como la Corte Penal Internacional, la Corte Internacional de Justicia, u otras personas relacionadas con la ONU.
  2. El Colegio puede establecer una voz pública que habla en relación con los acontecimientos del mundo que parecen violar o dificultar el desarrollo de la ley mundial exigible. Se trata de un auto- gobierno y organismo mundial auto- desarrollo con una presencia pública – noticias dignas, un organismo independiente de la política del estado – nación y el sistema de las Naciones Unidas.
  3. El Colegio puede establecer tribunales provisionales de conformidad con la Constitución de la Tierra, la legislación mundial, y en la medida en el derecho internacional adecuado, relevante a los derechos humanos, casos criminales, casos civiles, casos constitucionales, los conflictos internacionales, los casos públicos, tribunales de apelación, tribunales asesores, y tribunales de juveniles y de menores entre otros.

The Collegium of World Judges

(20 to 60 World Judges) Presiding Council of World Judges (consisting of a Chief Justice and four Associate Chief Justices

Integrado por un número entre 20 y 60 jueces mundiales del Consejo Mundial de Jueces (conformado por un Presidente y cuatro Presidentes de Tribunales asociados)

            Human Rights

Basic structure and operation as defined by the  1974 World Court Convention at Mulhouse, France and confirmed by the 6th Session of the Provisional World Parliament, (2003)

Derechos Humanos

De estructura básica y operación básicas tal como se define en la Convención Mundial de la Corte de 1974 en Mulhouse, Francia y confirmada por la 6ª sesión del Parlamento Provisonal Mundial Provisional (2003).

International Conflicts

Basic structure and operation as established by the International Court of Justice, but with the strengthened concepts of jurisdiction as provided by the Earth Constitution

Conflictos Internacionales

De estructura y funcionamiento básicos tal y como se establece por la Corte Internacional de Justicia, pero con conceptos de jurisdicción fortalecidos conforme a lo dispuesto por la Constitución de la Tierra

Appellate Bench

for appeals arising from courts of lower jurisdiction, such as the national courts. Also, to determine to which bench to refer a case when a question or disagreement arises over bench jurisdiction

Tribunal de Apelación

Para las apelaciones provenientes de tribunales de jurisdicción inferior, tales como los tribunales nacionales. Además, determinan a qué tribunal referir un caso en el caso en que surja una pregunta o de desacuerdo sobre la jurisdicción de los tribunales.

Criminal Cases

Basic structure and operation as defined by the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (1998 & 2010), and as qualified by the 7th and 12th Sessions of the Provisional World Parliament (2003 & 2010)

Casos Criminales

Estructura básica y operacional tal como se definen en el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (1998 y 2010), y tal y como fuera calificada en la 7ª y 12ª sesiones del Parlamento Provisional Mundial (2003 y 2010)

Advisory Bench

to give legal opinions upon request from branches of the Earth Federation, except for constitutional questions

Tribunal Asesor

Para dar opiniones legales a petición de las diferentes ramas de la Federación de la Tierra, con excepción de las cuestiones constitucionales

Civil Cases

Integrating the Permanent Court of Arbitration within the World Supreme Court System

Casos Civiles

Con capacidad de integración de la Corte Permanente de Arbitraje en el Sistema de la Suprema Corte Mundial

Public Cases

Cases between levels of government and nations, corporations, groups and individuals in questions involving world legislation

Casos Públicos

Con capacidad para los casos entre los niveles de gobierno y naciones, corporaciones, grupos y personas en cuestiones que impliquen la legislación mundial

            Juvenile Cases

Basic structure and operation as defined in world legislation by the 8th Session of the Provisional World Parliament (2004)

Casos juveniles y de menores

De estructura y funcionamiento básicos tal y como se define en la legislación mundial de la 8ª sesión del Parlamento Provisional Mundial (2004)

Casos Constitucionales

Con capacidad de interpretación de la Constitución de la Tierra

Colegio Mundial de Jueces

 

El Acta Legislativa Mundial # 48

El Acta Legislativa Mundial # 48 fue adoptada en la 12 ª sesión del Parlamento Provisional Mundial en Calcuta, en diciembre del 2010, permitiendo, a través de la Ley Mundial Provisional, la creación del Colegio. Estuvieron presentes en esta sesión fueron AP Mishra, ex juez de la Corte Suprema de la India y la conocida internacionalmente asociación de abogados Sri Puan Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, de Malasia. Saraswathy Devi se ha ofrecido a proporcionar asistencia administrativa desde sus oficinas en Kuala Lumpur y ayudar así a organizar y mantener el Colegio.

Algunas de las tareas y responsabilidades del Colegio Mundial de Jueces:

  1. El Colegio, conformado por jueces retirados del Tribunal Supremo o de la Corte Suprema de proveniente de una serie de países, con un Consejo Asesor integrado por jueces que ocupan sillas en la Corte Suprema o por jueces de la Corte Suprema, puede hablar con una voz que inspira respeto en relación con la necesidad de desarrollar una ley mundial ejecutable. Este puede y debe ser independiente de la política de la nación-estado y de las presiones que ahora restringen muchos cuerpos legales internacionales, como la Corte Penal Internacional, la Corte Internacional de Justicia, u otras personas relacionadas con la ONU.
  2. El Colegio puede establecer una voz pública que habla en relación con los acontecimientos del mundo que parecen violar o dificultar el desarrollo de la ley mundial exigible. Se trata de un auto- gobierno y organismo mundial auto- desarrollo con una presencia pública – noticias dignas, un organismo independiente de la política del estado – nación y el sistema de las Naciones Unidas.
  3. El Colegio puede establecer tribunales provisionales de conformidad con la Constitución de la Tierra, la legislación mundial, y en la medida en el derecho internacional adecuado, relevante a los derechos humanos, casos criminales, casos civiles, casos constitucionales, los conflictos internacionales, los casos públicos, tribunales de apelación, tribunales asesores, y tribunales de juveniles y de menores entre otros.

World Legislative Act #48

Provisional World Parliament

12th Session, 27th through 31st December 2010,

Rabindranath Tagore Auditorium, Bangla Academy,

and Sri Aurobindo Bhavan,

Calcutta, West Bengal, India

World Legislative Act #48

The Collegium of World Judges

 

Whereas planet Earth lacks the effective rule of enforceable democratically legislated law, and

Whereas a coherent, effective, and organized court system is essential to the rule of law, and

Whereas the present courts under the UN system lack essential features of effective courts such as the power of mandamus (the power to order arrests, subpoena witnesses, or compel testimony), and

Whereas the people of Earth are empowered, under Article 19 of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, to create provisional world government in its multiple aspects such as world parliament, world enforcement, and world courts, and

Whereas sections of the Earth Constitution germane to the present act read as follows:

Article 19.6:  The World Parliament and the World Executive of the Provisional World Government shall proceed with the organization of other organs and agencies of the world government on a provisional basis, insofar as considered desirable and feasible, in particular those specified under Section 3.10 of Article 17.

Section 3.10 of Article 17 lists the first of these organs and agencies as “the World Supreme Court.”

Article 9.4.1 states that:  A Collegium of World Judges shall be established by the World Parliament. The Collegium shall consist of a minimum of twenty member judges, and may be expanded as needed but not to exceed sixty members.   The article continues that “The Presiding Council of World Judges shall assign all world judges, including themselves, to the several benches of the World Supreme Court.

Therefore, we delegates sitting at the 12th session of the Provisional World Parliament do hereby activate a Collegium of World Judges as a component of the provisional world government.

 

  1. Retired supreme court or high court judges from all countries may become members of a Collegium of World Judges under the authority of the Earth Constitution.

1.1.    The Collegium of World Judges is empowered to cooperate with the Provisional World Parliament to initiate and staff the World Supreme Court to function as part of Provisional World Government until such time as the Constitution for the Federation of Earth has been ratified by the people and nations of Earth and the final composition of the World Supreme Court takes place.

1.2.   The Collegium of World Judges and the World Supreme Court shall operate according to the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

 

  1. Supreme court or high court judges who are not retired may become part of the Advisory Board to the Collegium of World Judges. The Advisory Board shall organize itself independently and shall establish independent relations that are mutually agreed upon by the Collegium.

 

  1. The Collegium and Advisory Board shall deposit Minutes of meetings and records of activities for respective bodies with the Registrars designated below:

The World Constitution and Parliament Association (organizer of sessions of the Provisional World Parliament), in cooperation with the City Montessori School of Lucknow, India, (organizer of World Judiciary Summits), shall serve as joint Registrars for the Collegium of World Judges and for the Advisory Board for the Collegium of World Judges.

 

  1. The Justices can, therefore, hear and try cases brought before the court benches using as legislative background the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, existing International Law, and/or existing Provisional World Law as adopted in sessions of the Provisional World Parliament (found at http://www.worldproblems.net). They may wish to use as existing judicial precedent the work of the ICJ, the ICC, or various other international courts that have operated during the past century.

 

  1. The Collegium can make judgments and confirmations regarding measured elections and plebiscites of the world administrative districts currently under development and otherwise lend their expertise to the proper development of provisional world law as legislated by the Provisional World Parliament.

 

  1. The Collegium can explicitly confirm principles of enforceable world law as embodied by the Earth Constitution; and, as appropriate, issue world court orders as are becoming of the courts of an emerging world legal system predicated on enforceable law.

 

  1. The Collegium can promote integration of current world systems of jurisprudence (for example, the ICC, ICJ, the Rome Statute, the Earth Constitution, etc.) with statements and organs of the Collegium with the view of strengthening a system of world law.

 

  1. The Collegium can officiate and swear in judges, advocates, prosecutors, etc., for world regional and district courts; thereby facilitating the development of world law. Eventually, the Collegium can develop guidelines for financing salaries and the hiring of judges, prosecutors, advocates, clerks, recorders, interpreters and bailiffs of the world court system not dependent upon tributes from member states but deriving from the financial structures of the emerging Earth Federation under the authority of the Earth Constitution.

Provisional World Parliament: World Legislative Act #48

Provisional World Parliament

12th Session, 27th through 31st December 2010,

Rabindranath Tagore Auditorium, Bangla Academy, and Sri Aurobindo Bhavan,

Calcutta, West Bengal, India

World Legislative Act #48

The Collegium of World Judges

 


Whereas a coherent, effective, and organized court system is essential to the rule of law, and 
here as planet Earth lacks the effective rule of enforceable democratically legislated law, and

Whereas the present courts under the UN system lack essential features of effective courts such as the power of mandamus (the power to order arrests, subpoena witnesses, or compel testimony), and

Whereas the people of Earth are empowered, under Article 19 of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth, to create provisional world government in its multiple aspects such as world parliament, world enforcement, and world courts, and

Whereas sections of the Earth Constitution germane to the present act read as follows:

Article 19.6:  The World Parliament and the World Executive of the Provisional World Government shall proceed with the organization of other organs and agencies of the world government on a provisional basis, insofar as considered desirable and feasible, in particular those specified under Section 3.10 of Article 17.

Section 3.10 of Article 17 lists the first of these organs and agencies as “the World Supreme Court.”

Article 9.4.1 states that:  A Collegium of World Judges shall be established by the World Parliament. The Collegium shall consist of a minimum of twenty member judges, and may be expanded as needed but not to exceed sixty members.   The article continues that “The Presiding Council of World Judges shall assign all world judges, including themselves, to the several benches of the World Supreme Court.

Therefore, we delegates sitting at the 12th session of the Provisional World Parliament do hereby activate a Collegium of World Judges as a component of the provisional world government.
  1. Retired supreme court judges from all countries may become members of a Collegium of World Judges under the authority of the Earth Constitution.

1.1.    The Collegium of World Judges is empowered to cooperate with the Provisional World Parliament to initiate and staff the World Supreme Court to function as part of Provisional World Government until such time as the Constitution for the Federation of Earth has been ratified by the people and nations of Earth and the final composition of the World Supreme Court takes place.

1.2.   The Collegium of World Judges and the World Supreme Court shall operate according to the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

  1. Supreme court judges who are not retired may become part of the Advisory Board to the Collegium of World Judges. The Advisory Board shall organize itself independently and shall establish independent relations that are mutually agreed upon by the Collegium.
  2. The Collegium and Advisory Board shall deposit Minutes of meetings and records of activities for respective bodies with the Registrars designated below:

The World Constitution and Parliament Association (organizer of sessions of the Provisional World Parliament), in cooperation with the City Montessori School of Lucknow, India, (organizer of World Judiciary Summits), shall serve as joint Registrars for the Collegium of World Judges and for the Advisory Board for the Collegium of World Judges.

*****************

Adopted 4:10 p.m., 27 December 2010, by the 12th Session of the Provisional World Parliament

 

Contact resources: Puan Sri Datin Seri N. Saraswathy Devi, Advocates & Solicitors Malaya, No.47, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250, Luala Lumpur, Malaysia. 603-2142-8075. rajee.alagendra@gmail.com.

Dr. Glen T. Martin, Secretary-General, WCPA, Radford University, Virginia, USA, 24142, gmartin@radford.edu.

Mr. Sandeep Srivastava, Project Leader, International Conferences of Chief Justices of the World at CMS, Lucknow, India (article51@cmseducation.org.  or mobile: 91-9235394975)

Membership Registration

CLICK HERE for the Membership Registration (Printable Word File)

Collegium of World Judges

Invitation to Membership

The Provisional World Parliament calls for a Provisional Collegium of World Judges to observe and decide on world social questions that are of world jurisdiction, to begin the integration of the World Supreme Court System.

In the view of many renowned jurists, the jurisdiction of a judge emerges not from the edict of a king, but rather from the law. The law is universal. As social constructs less than the whole of human existence cannot be universal, a social construct comprising the whole of human existence has to base itself on these fundamental laws of world order. Such jurists say that the imperative of world jurisdiction emerges from universal law, not from any claim of power. Therefore it might be legally incorrect to say: “All possible remedies at lower jurisdiction must be exhausted before acting at the world jurisdiction.”

As the world jurisdiction is there, and as many jurists affirm that the world jurisdiction is a primordial function of true law, affirmation and empowerment of such world jurisdiction is ethical, legal, and responsible.

Judges who see the truth of this have the opportunity to participate in the emerging Collegium of World Judges. Retired justices are particularly in demand, as judges of the Collegium are asked to devote themselves to pressing world cases and circumstances. Justices presently sitting in various active jurisdictions are requested to pledge their support for judges entering the Collegium, and to do all they can to support the Collegium without neglecting their current cases.

 

Please click the link above to fill out the membership form.  Return to any one office or person:

Dr. Glen T. Martin, 313 Seventh Ave., Radford, VA, 24141, USA. Email: gmartin@radford.edu.  Fax: +540639-2320.

  1. Saraswathy Devi, Advocates and Solicitors Malaya, No. 47, Jalan Sultan Ismail, 50250 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Tel: 603-2142-8075.  Email: rajee.alagendra@gmail.com.

Lic. Celina Garcia, WCPA Vice-President for Latin America.  Email: celina@ceppacr.org.  Tel: +506-2234-0524.

 

Canada Decision Is Message to Chevron: Stop Deaths in Ecuador Now!

Canada Decision Is Message to Chevron: Stop Deaths in Ecuador Now!

Retrieved from: Huffington Post website written by Paul Paz y Mino.

09/14/2015 04:01 pm ET | Updated Sep 14, 2015
  • Paul Paz y MiñoDirector of Outreach & Online Strategy, Amazon Watch, Oakland.

Reposted from Eye on the Amazon

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada handed Chevron another defeat in its efforts to forever avoid paying to clean up its toxic mess in the Amazon. It ruled unanimously that the Ecuadorian communities could pursue an enforcement action with the aim of seizing Chevron’s Canadian assets to cover its $10 billion liability. That means 18 appellate judges in Canada and Ecuador have now ruled against Chevron, and three more in the U.S. are currently considering following suit regarding Chevron’s bogus RICO retaliation. Even Judge Kaplan, who issued that decision and ran an amazingly biased proceeding, did not exonerate Chevron for its contamination.

In light of yet another of Chevron’s courtroom setbacks in the Ecuador pollution case, company CEO John Watson and his management team again face a stark choice: admit defeat and prevent further death to rainforest villagers, or continue on their disastrous folly by denying the truth. How many more people will lose their lives if Chevron fights on? Chevron is already widely recognized as a global corporate criminal, it has won awards to that effect and has seen protests against it in 20 countries on a single day. Condemning more innocent people in Ecuador to suffer and die is simply inhuman.

We’ve written before about Chevron’s choice to choose profit over people in Ecuador by dumping 18 billion gallons of toxic waste into the Amazon in order to save $3 per barrel. While operating as Texaco – the first to drill in the Amazon – they chose to reject pleas to safely line accumulating waste pits, stating that $4 million was too high a price to avoid poisoning local communities. That was merely one of the first of Chevron’s irresponsible choices with devastating consequences.

Chevron’s efforts to escape justice and attack its victims are a threat to anyone harmed by similar corporate misdeeds. By using its endless resources to drag out this fight, Chevron is violating the very idea of justice. These legal actions are not simply exercises to determine who is responsible for a past crime, they are to force the company to stop committing the same deadly crime over and over. Every single day that Chevron chooses to ignore its responsibility, the health crisis deepens and environmental conditions worsen.

Now thanks to the Canadian decision, CEO John Watson and Chief Counsel Hugh Pate are again faced with a choice. Will they continue their path down the “dark side” or will they finally decide to do what’s right and value the lives of those in Ecuador suffering from their admitted contamination? Do 10,000 more people need to become sick with cancer because Watson can’t admit what the whole world knows? Every single dollar Chevron spends trying to defend itself in Canada could be used today to clean up Ecuador, provide clean water and health services to the sick people of the Amazon.

The unanimous decision of the Canadian Supreme Court sends a clear message to Watson: ultimately, Chevron will lose again. Next year, Watson will stand in front of shareholders and the board of directors and have to explain why Chevron is back in court in a nation where it holds over $15 billion of assets at risk of seizure. Chevron will also face questions in court about why they hid the fact that their own technicians found toxic contamination in allegedly remediated well sites where only Texaco had ever operated.

There are many reasons why now is finally the time for Watson to finally decide to do what is right. The risk and interest grows daily in Canada. Chevron has lost $100 billion in market value in the last year. The amount Chevron owes has already increased by $500 million and will continue to increase over the course of a trial. But most importantly, Chevron can stop the ongoing deaths and environmental destruction. It has the means to end this nightmare in Ecuador and to help those people it admitted to harming when Texaco first acknowledged deliberate dumping.

Any court system that examines the evidence will find that Chevron intentionally polluted the environment and perpetrated a sham remediation, as the most litigated trial in Ecuador’s history determined. If John Watson chooses to invest billions to pay lawyers to fight so that eventuality takes place after he steps down as CEO, he will hold responsibility for future deaths solely on his shoulders – and conscience, if he still has one.

Even Darth Vader did the right thing eventually. It didn’t stop his empire from falling, but at least he reclaimed some measure of humanity in the process.

Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador)

Texaco/Chevron lawsuits (re Ecuador)

ARTICLE RETRIEVED FROM the BUISNESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTER http://business-humanrights.org/en/texacochevron-lawsuits-re-ecuador

Chevron in Ecuador By: Cancillería Ecuador, Creative CommonsPara la versión en español de este perfil de las demandas judiciales contra Texaco/Chevron por actividades en Ecuador, haga clic acá.

United States lawsuits
In 1993, a group of Ecuadorian citizens of the Oriente region filed a class action lawsuit in US federal court against Texaco (Aguinda v. Texaco), and in 1994 a group of Peruvian citizens living downstream from the Oriente region also filed a class action lawsuit against Texaco in US federal court (Jota v. Texaco).  Both complaints alleged that between 1964 and 1992 Texaco’s oil operations polluted the rainforests and rivers in Ecuador and Peru, resulting in environmental damage and damage to the health of those who live in the region.  Both lawsuits were dismissed by the US federal court in 2002 on forum non conveniens grounds (i.e., the court stated that Ecuador was a more appropriate venue for litigating these claims).  In connection with the dismissal, Texaco agreed that courts in Ecuador and/or Peru would have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ claims.

Ecuadorian legal proceedings
In 2003, a class action lawsuit was brought against Texaco (acquired by Chevron in 2001) in Ecuador alleging severe environmental contamination of the land where Texaco conducted its oil operation activities.  The plaintiffs alleged that this contamination has led to increased rates of cancer as well as other serious health problems for the residents of the region.  Judicial inspections of the allegedly contaminated sites commenced in August 2004.  In early 2008, an independent expert recommended to the court that Chevron should pay $7-16 billion in compensation for the pollution.  This expert increased his estimate of damages to $27 billion in November 2008.  In 2008, Chevron reportedly lobbied the US Government to end trade preferences with Ecuador over this lawsuit.  Following allegations of judicial misconduct, the original trial judge recused himself from the case and a new judge was appointed.  Following a successful petition in US court to receive unused footage from the documentary “Crude”, Chevron filed a petition with the court in August 2010 seeking to dismiss the lawsuit based on the company’s assertion that certain parts of this footage show alleged fraud on the part of the plaintiffs.  In September 2010, the plaintiffs submitted a new assessment of damages for the claims stating that the cost would be between $90 and $113 billion.  In the same month, the judge concluded the evidentiary phase of the lawsuit.  On 14 February 2011, the Ecuadorian judge issued a ruling against Chevron in the lawsuit.  Chevron was ordered to pay $8.6 billion in damages and clean up costs, with the damages increasing to $18 billion if Chevron does not issue a public apology.  Chevron indicated that it believes the ruling is “illegitimate” and “unenforceable”, and it filed an appeal.  On 3 January 2012 a panel of three judges from the Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios upheld the February 2011 ruling against Chevron.  On 20 January 2012, Chevron appealed the decision with Ecuador’s National Court of Justice.  In March 2012, Chevron asked the Provincial Court of Justice for the fourth time to block the Ecuadorian Government from enforcing the $18 billion judgment against it.  On 28 March 2012, the court ruled that Chevron was not entitled to use an order from the international arbitration tribunal, which asked Ecuador’s Government to suspend the litigation, to block the plaintiffs from enforcing the judgment.  In an effort to enforce the judgment, the Ecuadorian plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Canada in May 2012 and one in Brazil in June 2012 targetting Chevron’s assets in those countries.  On 6 August 2012, the Ecuadorian court ruled that Chevron had until the end of the day to pay the $19 billion judgment.  The award was increased in July 2012, after Judge Ortiz calculated various mandatory costs required by Ecuadorian law.  In October 2012, the Ecuadorian court issued an order permitting the plaintiffs to seize about $200 million of Chevron’s assets located in the country, in an effort to collect on the judgment against the company.  On 12 November 2013, Ecuador Supreme Court upheld the August 2012 ruling against Texaco/Chevron for environmental damage but halved damages to $9.51 billion.

In September 2014, Chevron reportedly filed a claim against Woodsford Litigation Funding, which had financed lawyers working on enforcing the $9.5 billion Ecuadorian judgement against Chevron.  Chevron claims the judgement was achieved by fraud and bribery.

LA_MANO_SUCIA_DE_CHEVRON_Credit_CancillerEcuador_via_Wikimedia_CommonsInternational arbitration proceedings
In December 2006, and again in September 2009, Chevron filed an international arbitration claim before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, alleging that the Government of Ecuador violated an US-Ecuador bilateral investment treaty.  Chevron claimed that the Government of Ecuador violated international law by unduly influencing the judiciary and thereby compromising the judiciary’s independence.  In March 2010 the arbitration panel ruled that Ecuador’s government had violated the bilateral investment treaty and international law by delaying rulings on the commercial dispute currently pending in Ecuador’s courts.  The Government of Ecuador and the plaintiffs in the Ecuadorian lawsuit filed a lawsuit in US federal court seeking an injunction barring Chevron from proceeding with arbitration under the bilateral investment treaty.  The parties argued that due process rights in Ecuador would be denied should Chevron proceed with its arbitration.

In March 2010 the US court ruled that Chevron may pursue international arbitration in this case.  The plaintiffs and Government of Ecuador have appealed this ruling.  In an effort to prove its case, Chevron has sued in ten different US federal courts to try and obtain discovery documents from various consultants the plaintiffs engaged in the assessment of damages.

In February 2011 the international arbitration panel issued an Interim Measures Order in favour of Chevron ordering Ecuador to take all measures to suspend enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment.

In February 2012 the arbitration panel met to review Ecuador’s compliance with the Interim Measures Order.  In February 2013 the arbitration tribunal ruled that Ecuador had not complied with the Interim Measures Order.

In March 2015, the arbitration tribunal held that the settlement between Chevron and Ecuador did not preclude residents from suing over the pollution in the future. The tribunal has yet to consider whether the issuing of the Ecuadorian judgment was in violation of the investment agreement with Texaco.

In January 2016, the international arbitration tribunal ruled in favour of Chevron over Ecuador being bound by the US-Ecuador investment agreement. Ecuador said it will appeal the decision.

US legal proceedings following Ecuadorian judgment
Chevron filed a racketeering lawsuit against the plaintiffs’ lawyers and representatives in US federal court on 1 February 2011.  This lawsuit alleges that the plaintiffs’ lawyers and representatives have conspired to extort up to $113 billion from Chevron through the Ecuadorian legal proceedings.  In addition, Chevron obtained a temporary restraining order from a US federal judge, Lewis Kaplan, on 9 February 2011 enjoining the plaintiffs from attempting to enforce a judgment in the Ecuadorian legal proceedings in the United States.  This temporary restraining order was extended in March 2011 and later appealed by the plaintiffs.  Meanwhile, a US law firm has filed its own lawsuit against Chevron and Chevron’s US legal counsel claiming that they have illegally interfered with its representation of the claimants in the legal proceedings.  On 19 September 2011, the US federal appeals court lifted the lower court’s order preventing enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment.  The court also ordered a stay of the racketeering case that Chevron filed against the plaintiffs.  On 29 November 2011, Chevron filed a pre-trial motion to seize assets of the Ecuadorian plaintiffs in the racketeering lawsuit.  In January 2012, US federal judge rejected Chevron’s request, stating it could be renewed at a later date.  On 5 January 2012, Chevron asked the US federal appeals court to restore the injunction enjoining the plaintiffs from enforcing the Ecuadorian judgment.  On 19 January 2012, the court rejected Chevron’s request.  On 26 January 2012, explaining its previous decision, the court of appeals ruled that Judge Kaplan lacked authority to block the enforcement of the $18 billion judgment.  On 15 May 2012, the district judge overseeing the racketeering lawsuit allowed for the racketeering claims to continue, while dismissing claims of fraud.  In October 2012 the US Supreme Court refused to hear Chevron’s appeal of the lower court’s decision ruling that Judge Kaplan lacked authority to issue the injunction blocking enforcement of the Ecuadorian judgment. In July-August 2013, US federal courts upheld subpoenas served by Chevron on Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! demanding private user information about environmental advocates, journalists, lawyers and others. Chevron sought this as part of its fraud lawsuit against certain Ecuadorian oil pollution plaintiffs and their lawyers.

Canadian proceedings
In an effort to enforce the $9.51 billion Ecuadorian judgment, the Ecuadorian villagers filed a lawsuit in Canada in May 2012 targetting Chevron’s assets in this country.  In September 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs were able to sue Chevron and its Canadian subsidiary in Canada.

International proceedings
In October 2014, Ecuadorian rainforest communities filed a communication at the International Criminal Court in respect of Chevron chief executive’s acts to prevent the ordered clean-up of toxic waste in the Amazon.

– “Ecuador court deals Chevron fresh blow in pollution case“, Reuters, 16 Oct 2012
– “Chevron fails to squelch $19 billion Ecuador verdict“, Paul Barrett Bloomberg Businessweek, 9 Oct 2012
– “Chevron Faces Midnight Deadline in $19 Billion Ecuador Judgment“, Environment News Service 6 Aug 2012
– “Ecuador plaintiffs target Chevron’s assets in Brazil“, Eduardo Garcia, Reuters, 28 Jun 2012
– “Ecuador plainitffs file lawsuit in Canada against Chevron“, Eduardo Garcia, Reuters, 30 May 2012
– “Chevron Gets Some Claims Dismissed From Ecuador Lawsuit (Update 2)“, Patricia Hurtado, Bob Van Voris, Bloomberg 15 May 2012
– “Ecuadorian panel again squashes Chevron motion to block judgment“, Jessica M. Karmasek, Legal Newsline, 2 Apr 2012
 “Ecuadoreans Blast ‘Secret’ Hague Tribunal Convened for Chevron“, Adam Klasfeld, Courthouse News Service, 10 Feb 2012
– “Circuit Faults Use of State Law to Block Chevron Judgment“, Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 27 Jan 2012
– “Ecuador Update: One Door Shuts, Another Opens, and Chevron Lists Its Law Firms—All 39 of Them“, Michael D. Goldhaber, Am Law Daily, 24 Jan 2012
– “Chevron Appeals Ruling In Ecuadorian Court“, Dow Jones Newswires, 20 Jan 2012
– “So much for Plan B: Kaplan denies Chevron attachment motion“, Alison Frankel, Reuters, 6 Jan 2012
– “Reversal of Fortune“, Patrick Radden Keefe, New Yorker, 9 Jan 2012 [subscription only]
– “Chevron to fight Ecuador ruling“, Naomi Mapstone, Financial Times, 6 Jan 2012
– “Chevron Bid to Dismiss $18 Billion Judgment Rejected in Ecuador Court“, Karen Gullo & Mark Chediak, Bloomberg, 4 Jan 2012

– [Español] “Corte de Ecuador ratifica fallo contra petrolera Chevron“, Reuters 3 Jan 2012
– “U.S. court rules against Chevron in Ecuador case“, David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle, 20 Sep 2011
– [Español] “Corte de EEUU apoya a Ecuador en cuantioso juicio contra Chevron“, AP, 19 Sep 2011
– “Ecuador: finally, the polluter is commanded to pay“, Independent, 16 Feb 2011
– “Chevron Fined $8.6 Billion in Epic Environmental Case“, Frank Bajak & Gonzalo Solano, Associated Press, 15 Feb 2011
– “Federal Judge Blocks Enforcement of Likely Judgment Against Chevron“, Mark Hamblett, New York Law Journal, 9 Feb 2011
– “Law firm fires back at Chevron in Ecuador case“, Dan Levine, Reuters, 8 Feb 2011
– “Year 18 of Ecuador vs. Chevron Pollution Dispute“, Michael D. Goldhaber, American Lawyer, 23 Sep 2010
– “Chevron keeps up pressure in Ecuador suit“, David R. Baker, San Francisco Chronicle, 7 Sep 2010
– “Chevron wins an Ecuador claim, awaits major ruling“, Braden Reddall, Reuters, 30 Mar 2010
-“Texaco Toxic Past Haunts Chevron as Judgment Looms“, Michael Smith & Karen Gullo, Bloomberg, 30 Dec 2008
– “Chevron Estimate for Amazon Damages Rises by $11 Billion“, Karen Gullo, Bloomberg, 27 Nov 2008
– “A $16 Billion Problem“, Michael Isikoff, Newsweek, 26 Jul 2008
– [Español] “Nueve ecuatorianos demandan a Texaco“, Olga Imbaquingo, Diario el Comercio [Ecuador], 26 abril 2006
– “Amazon Indians Say Texaco Left Damage“, Gonzalo Solano, Associated Press, 20 Oct 2005
– “Chevron Trial Opens”, Alan Zibel, Oakland Tribune, 21 Oct 2003

Chevron:
– “Chevron Statement on United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals Order“, 19 Sep 2011
The Amazon Post
– “Ecuador Lawsuit – Facts about Chevron and Texaco in Ecuador
– “Ecuador Lawsuit – Press Releases
– “History of Texaco and Chevron in Ecuador” [includes links to US court decisions, certain filings by Texaco and status of Ecuadorian proceedings]
– [Español] “Texaco en Ecuador” [incluye enlaces a decisiones judiciales en los EEUU, varios documentos de Texaco y el estado actual de los procedimientos en Ecuador – material sólo en inglés]

Amazon Defense Coalition [NGO supporting plaintiffs]:
– “Chevron’s $27 Billion Catastrophe
– “Press Releases
– “Key Documents & Court Filings from Aguinda Legal Team
– Earthrights International [filed brief in support of plaintiffs in the US proceedings]: “Amicus Brief in Jota v. Texaco and Aguida v. Texaco

– [PDF] [EspañolFallo de la Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos en el caso Maria Aguida y Otros, Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos, 15 octubre 2012
– [PDF] [EspañolFallo de la Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos en el caso Maria Aguida y Otros contra Chevron Corporation, Corte Provincial de Justicia de Sucumbíos, 28 marzo 2012
– [PDF] Chevron Corporation v Camacho Naranjo, et al- Order, US Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit, 19 Jan 2012
– [PDF] [EspañolJuez ponente: Dr. Milton Toral Zevallos – Corte provincial de justicia de Sucumbíos, Sala única de la corte provincial de justicia de Sucumbíos, 3 de enero 2012
– [PDF] Provincial Court of Justice of Sucumbios, 3 Jan 2012 [English translation of appeals court decision]
– [PDF] Chevron Corporation v Steven Donziger et al – Memorandum Opinion, US District Court Southern District of New York, 6 Jan 2012
– [PDF] Chevron’s appeal to Chief Judge of Sucumbios Provincial Court, 21 Mar 2011
– [PDF] Chevron Corporation v. Camacho Naranjo, et al. – Summary Order, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 19 Sep 2011
– [PDF] [Español] Juez ponente: AB. Nicolas Zambrano Lozada – Corte Provincial de Justicia Sucumbíos, Corte Provincial de Justicia Sucumbíos [Ecuador], 14 de febrero de 2011 [Fallo completo en el caso por daños ambientales contra Chevron]
– [PDF] Provincial Court of Sucumbios – Judgment of Case No. 2003-0002, 14 Feb 2011 [English translation of decision issued by the Provincial Court of Sucumbios, Ecuador]

Earth Constitution – Article 9

The World Judiciary

 

   Earth Constitution – Article 9

.

Sec. A – Jurisdiction of the World Supreme Court

  1. A World Supreme Court shall be established, together with such regional and district World Courts as may subsequently be found necessary. The World Supreme Court shall comprise a number of benches.
  2. The World Supreme Court, together with such regional and district World Courts as may be established, shall have mandatory jurisdiction in all cases, actions, disputes, conflicts, violations of law, civil suits, guarantees of civil and human rights, constitutional interpretations, and other litigations arising under the provisions of this World Constitution, world legislation, and the body of world law approved by the World Parliament.
  3. Decisions of the World Supreme Court shall be binding on all parties involved in all cases, actions and litigations brought before any bench of the World Supreme Court for settlement. Each bench of the World Supreme Court shall constitute a court of highest appeal, except when matters of extra-ordinary public importance are assigned or transferred to the Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court, as provided in Section E of Article IX.

Sec. B – Benches of the World Supreme Court

The benches of the World Supreme Court and their respective jurisdictions shall be as follows:

  1. Bench for Human Rights: To deal with issues of human rights arising under the guarantee of civil and human rights provided by Article XIII of this World Constitution, and arising in pursuance of the provisions of Article XIII of this World Constitution, and arising otherwise under world legislation and the body of world law approved by the World Parliament.
  2. Bench for Criminal Cases: To deal with issues arising from the violation of world laws and world legislation by individuals, corporations, groups and associations, but not issues primarily concerned with human rights.
  3. Bench for Civil Cases: To deal with issues involving civil law suits and disputes between individuals, corporations, groups and associations arising under world legislation and world law and the administration thereof.
  4. Bench for Constitutional Cases: To deal with the interpretation of the World Constitution and with issues and actions arising in connection with the interpretation of the World Constitution.
  5. Bench for International Conflicts: To deal with disputes, conflicts and legal contest arising between or among the nations which have joined in the Federation of Earth.
  6. Bench for Public Cases: To deal with issues not under the jurisdiction of another bench arising from conflicts, disputes, civil suits or other legal contests between the World Government and corporations, groups or individuals, or between national governments and corporations, groups or individuals in cases involving world legislation and world law.
  7. Appellate Bench: To deal with issues involving world legislation and world law which may be appealed from national courts; and to decide which bench to assign a case or action or litigation when a question or disagreement arises over the proper jurisdiction.
  8. Advisory Bench: To give opinions upon request on any legal question arising under world law or world legislation, exclusive of contests or actions involving interpretation of the World Constitution. Advisory opinions may be requested by any House or committee of the World Parliament, by the Presidium, any Administrative Department, the Office of World Attorneys General, the World Ombudsmus, or by any agency of the Integrative Complex.
  9. Other benches may be established, combined or terminated upon recommendation of the Collegium of World Judges with approval by the World Parliament; but benches number one through eight may not be combined nor terminated except by amendment of this World Constitution.

Sec. C – Seats of the World Supreme Court

  1. The primary seat of the World Supreme Court and all benches shall be the same as for the location of the Primary World Capital and for the location of the World Parliament and the World Executive.
  2. Continental seats of the World Supreme Court shall be established in the four secondary capitals of the World Government located in four different Continental Divisions of Earth, as provided in Article XV.
  3. The following permanent benches of the World Supreme Court shall be established both at the primary seat and at each of the continental seats: Human Rights, Criminal Cases, Civil Cases, and Public Cases.
  4. The following permanent benches of the World Supreme Court shall be located only at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court: Constitutional Cases, International Conflicts, Appellate Bench, and Advisory Bench.
  5. Benches which are located permanently only at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court may hold special sessions at the other continental seats of the World Supreme Court when necessary, or may establish continental circuits if needed.
  6. Benches of the World Supreme Court which have permanent continental locations may hold special sessions at other locations when needed, or may establish regional circuits if needed.

Sec. D – The Collegium of World Judges

  1. A Collegium of World Judges shall be established by the World Parliament. The Collegium shall consist of a minimum of twenty member judges, and may be expanded as needed but not to exceed sixty members.
  2. The World Judges to compose the Collegium of World Judges shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors and shall be elected by plurality vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session. The House of Counsellors shall nominate betwe en two and three times the number of world judges to be elected at any one time. An equal number of World Judges shall be elected from each of ten World Electoral and Administrative Magna-Regions, if not immediately then by rotation.
  3. The term of office for a World Judge shall be ten years. Successive terms may be served without limit.
  4. The Collegium of World Judges shall elect a Presiding Council of World Judges, consisting of a Chief Justice and four Associate Chief Justices. One member of the Presiding Council of World Judges shall be elected from each of five Continental Divisions of Earth. Members of the Presiding Council of World Judges shall serve five year terms on the Presiding Council, and may serve two successive terms, but not two successive terms as Chief Justice.
  5. The Presiding Council of World Judges shall assign all World Judges, including themselves, to the several benches of the World Supreme Court. Each bench for a sitting at each location shall have a minimum of three World Judges, except that the number of World Judges for benches on Continental Cases and International Conflicts, and the Appellate Bench, shall be no less than five.
  6. The member judges of each bench at each location shall choose annually a Presiding Judge, who may serve two successive terms.
  7. The members of the several benches may be reconstituted from time to time as may seem desirable or necessary upon the decision of the Presiding Council of World Judges. Any decision to re-constitute a bench shall be referred to a vote of the entire Collegium of World Judges by request of any World Judge.
  8. Any World Judge may be removed from office for cause by an absolute two- thirds majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.
  9. Qualifications for Judges of the World Supreme Court shall be at least ten years of legal or juristic experience, minimum age of thirty years, and evident competence in world law and the humanities.
  10. The salaries, expenses, remunerations and prerogatives of the World Judges shall be determined by the World Parliament, and shall be reviewed every five years, but shall not be changed to the disadvantage of any World Judge during a term of office. All members of the Collegium of World Judges shall receive the same salaries, except that additional compensation may be given to the Presiding Council of World Judges.
  11. Upon recommendation by the Collegium of World Judges, the World Parliament shall have the authority to establish regional and district world courts below the World Supreme Court, and to establish the jurisdictions thereof, and the procedures for appeal to the World Supreme Court or to the several benches thereof.
  12. The detailed rules of procedure for the functioning of the World Supreme Court, the Collegium of World Judges, and for each bench of the World Supreme Court, shall be decided and amended by absolute majority vote of the Collegium of World Judges.

Sec. E – The Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court

  1. A Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court shall be established to take cases which are considered to be of extra-ordinary public importance. The Superior Tribunal for any calendar year shall consist of the Presiding Council of World Judges together with one World Judge named by the Presiding Judge of each bench of the World Court sitting at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court. The composition of the Superior Tribunal may be continued unchanged for a second year by decision of the Presiding Council of World Judges.
  2. Any party to any dispute, issue, case or litigation coming under the jurisdiction of the World Supreme Court, may apply to any particular bench of the World Supreme Court or to the Presiding Council of World Judges for the assignment or transfer of the case to the Superior Tribunal on the grounds of extra-ordinary public importance. If the application is granted, the case shall be heard and disposed of by the Superior Tribunal. Also, any bench taking any particular case, if satisfied that the case is of extra-ordinary public importance, may of its own discretion transfer the case to the Superior Tribunal.

Collegium of World Judges: A session of the World Court to try the Ecuador-Chevron Case

The Provisional World Parliament at its 12th session in Kolkata, India, December 2010, passed World Legislative Act # 48 calling for a Collegium of World Judges to adjudicate issues that are of world significance under the world jurisdiction provided by the Constitution for the Federation of Earth. Officers of the World Constitution and Parliament Association (WCPA), under the authority of the Earth Constitution and the Provisional World Parliament, are establishing a bench of the World Supreme Court System in Costa Rica to examine the legal conflict between a group of the indigenous citizens of Ecuador and Chevron-Texaco over alleged human rights violations and environmental destruction within Ecuador.

 

This will be the second trial court of the World Court System constituted under the authority of the Earth Constitution.In Los Angeles during 1983-87, a District World Court was constituted comprised of several eminent jurists to try the nuclear weapons possessing nations for the crime of possessing weapons of mass destruction. The new bench of the World Court System, a Bench for Public Cases, is being developed to adjudicate the Citizens of Ecuador vs. Chevron-Texaco, a contest which has already been through a number of legal venues over the past 20 years without any clear legal resolution. The World Supreme Court System has clear universal legal jurisdiction to try cases relating to both human rights violations and destruction of the environment.

 

The call is going out to former Supreme Court Justices from many different countries to apply for membership in the Collegium of World Judges.  From this group, our project will constitute a court of 5-7 judges to try the Ecuador v. Chevron-Texaco case.  We expect the Court to open in January 2016 in a venue promised to the Court by the University of Costa Rica. We are also mounting a campaign in Costa Rica to have 25,000 signatories to the Earth Constitution by the time the Court opens its doors.  These signatures will represent a major confirmation of the significance of the Court and its authority under the Earth Constitution.

 

Immediate Objectives:

 

  1. To recruit qualified former Supreme Court Justices as member of the Collegium of World Judges, available not only for this case but other possible cases in the future (by December 2014).
  2. To select 5-7 qualified eminent justices to sit on the bench for the case of Citizens of Ecuador v. Chevron-Texaco (by April 2015).
  3. With the help of the justices for this bench, to gather historical and background information for this legal case (April 2015 to December 2015).
  4. To develop a funding base for the Court that will sustain it for as long as necessary to try this case.
  5. To collect 25,000 signatures from Costa Rican citizens demanding that this Court be activated under the authority of the Earth Constitution (by December 2015).
  6. To open proceedings of the Court in the venue promised by the University of Costa Rica (January 2016).

 

Broad Objectives:

 

  1. To enhance and magnify the rule of law for planet Earth.
  2. To enhance the legal protection of our planetary environment and human rights worldwide.
  3. To develop the infrastructure for a permanent World Supreme Court System.
  4. To promote worldwide recognition of the Earth Constitution as a primary source for world law.
  5. To promote a world-system in which brings both nation-states and multi-national corporations under the universal jurisdiction of emerging world law.