Thursday, July 04, 2013

Damn, I almost forgot...

...Happy Birthday AZ, Happy Birthday la la la la la la...Happy b'day to me.

Seven years old, she is.  Born again, raised from the dead, on July 4, 2006

And Happy B'day to America.  As always, I mark the occasion with this picture of Elizabeth Shue, wrapped in a tattered Old Glory, standing in a desert landscape.  Love this pic.

And muchos gracias to KJ for the donation! Nice b'day gift I'm going to use to file some PRR's.


Anonymous said...

Happy Birthday, and in the immortal words of Winnie the Pooh, many happy returns of the day.

Anonymous said...

Might not be on topic but in light of the season and letting freedom ring, isn't the freedom to see transparently the issues that directly affect the public part of what that beautiful flag is all about?

I'm not sure what world we live in anymore or even if this is old news or not news at all, but is it normal that the "new guy" (or at least his firm) represented BP America's?

Tell me I'm wrong but isn't this a page from Mr Juneau's firm's now unavailable website? :

Sorry if this is just, "oh well, of course," but maybe I'm just old fashioned or distracted by some of the other "non-news" just up the river regarding BP and the recent attempts of other "officials" to get in the game.

I swear to God I originally started to look up the Juneau firm as a starting place to dispel my own gut suspicion that this could all be part of an orchestrated drama to "blow up" the Macondo liability. Silly me. I never imagined that my first hit would be so easy...or is it just me?

I can definitely say that that situation (client #12: "BP America Inc.") on the "client list" from 2010 definitely doesn't help to ease my unease about BP-Related litigation unfolding "up here."

PS: you might want to captcha as many of these images before they, too sink under the murky, oily blue.

Anonymous said...

Five more minutes and noticed that maybe I shouldn't have looked over client #1 and #2: "ACE USA Claims
ACE Westchester Specialty Claims" in haste to get to client #12.

Maybe Ace IS the place to start looking, like here, for example:

A couple of really interesting articles there about claims being denied, lawsuits, and RICO, whatever that is.

Anyway, another hour or so and maybe I can get to the bottom of the first row.....I noticed Star Insurance and AIG down there somewhere....

Of course, it might be nothing.

Anonymous said...

One correction: the "client list" is available, but it's just not the same, like so many things.

For example, client #12 "BP America Inc", from the 2010 archive version: Is missing from the current .

Missing also is "Smith InternationaL".
client #26, right column,

See this background:

Nothing to see here, right....just keep rowing along. Two strikes and you're out of the Macondo legal business, I guess...right?

Jason Brad Berry said...

somebody just learned how to use the magic of the wayback machine....bully on you, big guy.

Jason Brad Berry said...

And hang tight...the firms currently running the claims process, and their former employment by BP, is going to get much more fun as I continue to post in the coming weeks.

I promise will see the road map. Unless I get whacked before I can fulfill my services as the armchair cartographer. Give me a month, and you will see how this thing was laid out and more importantly, how it's fucking all of us....the little guys.

Jason Brad Berry said...

In the meantime..let freedom ring. Keep posting Anon. I will sort it all out, I promise. Don't be afraid to be wrong..just keep digging.

Anonymous said...

If you want to have some fun go to the Baton Rouge Government website and view the item for the BP legal contract for the possible Baton Rouge lawsuit. Check out the actual voting machine on the video for the vote to go into executive session.

Kevin said...

Does anyone visiting these pages know if Janel L. Daley was a law clerk to Stanwood R. Duval of the Eastern District?

Does anyone visiting these pages know where she is working these days?

The reason I ask is a late short-form joinder in the limitation proceeding was filed on her behalf, and on behalf of others including Stanwood R. Duval, Jr.

The motion to file the short-form out of time said these people were unaware of the deadline to file such forms. I just find that statement interesting.

Kevin said...

Anon at July 7:

The vote was 5 to 3 in favor of going into executive session, wasn't it? Wow.

Chandler Loupe couldn't find a Louisiana attorney to represent the City of Baton Rouge? He knows Pat Juneau and Calvin Fayard very well. I find it hard to believe.

Kevin said...

2 things:

"Janet" L. Daley, according to Louisiana Bar Association is employed at the Eastern District and has an office at 500 Poydras Street, Suite C368.

I don't know what a "short-form joinder" in a Transocean limitation proceeding is, and it may have nothing to do with the BP settlement, but it was filed in the MDL proceeding on June 28, 2013.

Re: my comment about Chandler Loupe, let me explain that I find it hard to believe that's the whole story.

Anonymous said...

Tell me if a lawyer can hide public records by using private email and more might be told.

Jason Brad Berry said...

Of course. But those records had to have been established on the public record before they were emailed.

I don't understand the question.

Public records are public...period. The moment they are created they are public.

If someone emailed them through a private email then that is private. Unless there is no other record of those public records...then you could posssibly get a court order to release only that document(s).

I don't quite understand what the agenda is here.

Anonymous said...

Can a public official use private or personal email to discuss public business and expect that those communications are not subject to public records requests in good ol' Louisiana?

Anonymous said...

Kevin, FYI here is an explanation of votes needed for an executive session from the city ordinance:"A public body may hold executive sessions upon an affirmative vote, taken at an open meeting for which notice has been given pursuant to R.S. 42:7, of two-thirds (2/3) of its constituent members present." I suggest that you review ALL of the columns on the voting machine closely for the vote for the executive session and possibly notice how the person who made the motion to go into executive session actually voted. I think it is unusual, but you can form your own opinion. I think this story could get deeper as time goes on.