Monday, January 27, 2014

Barbier....judge or magician?

...because apparently he has a knack for making prickly things disappear.

Funny thing happened today.  The very day federal court opened for business after I referenced this Motion for Leave to Class Counsel's Comments on the Special Master's Report over the weekend, Judge Barbier struck the Class Counsel's comments on the Freeh Report filed on Sept 20, 2013 from the record:

 Barbier order to strike CC comments on Freeh Report Sept. 20, 2013

I guess maybe the judge had forgotten about it and the BP motion to leave jogged his memory? Regardless, by striking the CC comments it now renders BP's motion for leave....and the issues I brought up in my post....moot.

Also... now special master Freeh doesn't have to be made "officially" aware of the issues.  Of course if he reads AZ he would be unofficially made aware of the client referral and law firm partnering issues but I'm sure he's way too busy to stop by here.

I said it had slipped under the radar but now it's like it was never even a blip!

I'm sure this is all just a coinkydink....and a swell turn of events for some.

Herman, Herman and Katz and those PSC attorneys....how lucky can you be?  It's like they made a deal with Ol' Scratch down at the crossroads.



UPDATE - COMMENT BUMP:

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Barbier....judge or magician?": 

What a coincidence. The AndryLerner supplemental objection to the Freeh Report was also withdrawn today. That opposition was just filed on January 17 and was the only opposition from any of those parties that dealt specifically with the joint representation / fee split issues. There was even an opinion attached from a well respected ethics expert but that was withdrawn also. In fact, the motion to withdraw and the order made certain that the exhibit was identified and withdrawn. I'm sure you can find a copy of that order.

What could possibly have caused AL to withdraw an opposition that they just filed a week earlier. I'm sure that the ethics expert and the accounting expert that was also included were not cheap. Andry did not withdraw his opposition. Lerner did not withdraw his opposition. The other AndryLerner oppositions were not withdrawn. Only the opposition dealing with the joint representation issue.

I don't know about AZ, but this is too much of a coincidence for me. And if its not a coincidence, what was the quid pro quo?

Well...yeah...if that's true it is way too much of a coincidence and then you have to ask was there some kind of deal cut with Andry Lerner to drop their supplemental objection.  Basically, in one day the entire issue was wiped off the radar...off the record that is. 

I would like to see that order if anyone can find it. 

It certainly appears as if Barbier is waving his magic scepter to hide the potential indiscretions of Herman, Herman & Katz and the PSC lawyers in general.  

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

No luck needed Z. Just keep exposing their bullshit and their LUCK will run out.

Barbier will lose a great deal over this. The snowball has started to roll....perfect analogy regarding our fate tomorrow!

Anonymous said...

In-Hale
I’m total confused, what’s the point of having an independent investigation then striking the parts you don’t like. Can’t wait to hear the judge’s reason for doing this, BP should be jumping up and down unless they’re in on this game.

I guess one way to confirm it, is when they support the motion to name Freeh as the new Claims Administrator.

Anonymous said...

What a coincidence. The AndryLerner supplemental objection to the Freeh Report was also withdrawn today. That opposition was just filed on January 17 and was the only opposition from any of those parties that dealt specifically with the joint representation / fee split issues. There was even an opinion attached from a well respected ethics expert but that was withdrawn also. In fact, the motion to withdraw and the order made certain that the exhibit was identified and withdrawn. I'm sure you can find a copy of that order.

What could possibly have caused AL to withdraw an opposition that they just filed a week earlier. I'm sure that the ethics expert and the accounting expert that was also included were not cheap. Andry did not withdraw his opposition. Lerner did not withdraw his opposition. The other AndryLerner oppositions were not withdrawn. Only the opposition dealing with the joint representation issue.

I don't know about AZ, but this is too much of a coincidence for me. And if its not a coincidence, what was the quid pro quo?

Anonymous said...

In Hale
1) there is an never was an "independent" investigation.

2) it wasn't part of Freeh's report that was withdrawn, it was class counsel's objection to it which inexplicably raised the issue of joint representation. There was never an allegation that Sutton and Andry had joint representation. Sutton's firm represented Thonn and withdrew, then Andry's firm represented him. Most people thought that class counsel raised the issue prophylacticaly (is that a word?).

3) after 4 months BP tried to jump all over class counsel on that issue. Did they just get new information?

4) on Saturday, AZ speculated that maybe Herman & Herman had their own joint representation problems.

5) the first business day after AZ's post, class counsel's opposition from 4 months ago is withdrawn, AndryLerner's opposition from 1 week ago is withdrawn and BP is denied the opportunity to file their brief in response to class counsel's opposition.

If AZ is right, I think this was orchestrated to protect class counsel. BP and Freeh had nothing to do with it.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

I think it was absolutely orchestrated to protect class counsel...it's as plain as day to me at least.

But I think Freeh is complicit in that I know damn good and well he must be aware of the issue...you can't tell me someone in the Freeh Group isn't aware of it because I know they read the Goddamn post.

If he's choosing to overlook it because it's not on the record...anymore....he's fucking complicit in covering it up.

This whole thing is very much a travesty of justice on so many levels.

I just read where Stephen Hawking is now claiming that black holes aren't really black because on a quantum level information can escape back out of the event horizon.

I would assume Hawking hasn't encountered Barbier's court yet because it would most likely cause him to rethink his theory.

Anonymous said...

Or Hawking could be right but Barbier controls the escape hatch. How else to explain Emeril getting a quick hearing, after he already got paid on his claim. But Reitano gets fired from a contract for no reason and her attempt at recourse gets booted so far over the event horizon that it will take light years just to get her day in court, if ever.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the clarification, so by denying the leave and striking the CC comments Daddy Daycare keeps everything in his sand box and doesn’t need to address the fee splitting issue?

As for the investigation silly me for reading and believing that it was designed and reported to be independent.
1) Freeh's 1st report was labeled as “Independent External Investigation”
2) “BP had called for an independent review of the allegations. A company spokesman said in a statement that it was pleased with the appointment to try to ensure the integrity of the claims process.”

In-Hale

Kevin said...

From the Class Counsel's comments on the Freeh report:

"Class Counsel welcome the involvement of Special Master Freeh in continued
recommendations to the Claims Administrator regarding the implementation of internal compliance and anti-fraud procedures, as well as the recommendation of '“any additional
business process procedures designed to promptly and fairly adjudicate claims in an efficient
manner, and assist the Claims Administrator in the implementation of same.”'

Anonymous said...

""Class Counsel welcome the involvement of Special Master Freeh in continued
recommendations to the Claims Administrator regarding the implementation of internal compliance and anti-fraud procedures, as well as the recommendation of '“any additional
business process procedures designed to promptly and fairly adjudicate claims in an efficient
manner, and assist the Claims Administrator in the implementation of same.'"

Just as long as the findings don't include class counsel. For the first time, I'm wondering if Freeh is more beholden to Class Counsel than BP. The Penn State fiasco demonstrates how easy he blurs the lines between 2 masters.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

"3) after 4 months BP tried to jump all over class counsel on that issue. Did they just get new information?"

I am guessing they got the same information I did on Herman, Herman & Katz. It's too much of a coincidence that we both brought it up at almost the same time.

What's really amazing is that now...they don't even have to answer to it. Even though BP has brought up the issue, and me, Barbier just swept it under the rug and it's business as usual.

This is a big deal...it's a very big deal. I don't have a lot of hope that anything will come of it because I've already pointed out numerous big deals with the PSC firms including an outright fraudulent claim they filed on behalf of OPP for damages to Wisner property (not DHEECC claim) and nothing has happened.

You know our DOJ isn't going to investigate these guys, I'm not sure they're investigating anything anymore. I don't know what recourse there is here, if any.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

And don't tell me these guys:

http://www.ladb.org/

...are going to do anything. They're a joke. They're bought and paid for by the very guys they should be investigating.

I'd point out that this issue is grounds for disbarment but I don't want to insult you guys' intelligence.

That's how it works in Louisiana, Basile Uddo writes an opinion to the LADB saying everything is ok and sho' nuff....everything is ok.

Anonymous said...

"You know our DOJ isn't going to investigate these guys, I'm not sure they're investigating anything anymore. I don't know what recourse there is here, if any."

Wrong. They will continue to investigate the fry and let the fish swim away.

Kevin said...

Just read the latest filing (a motion for contempt)by The Andry Law Firm, which is not to be confused with the Andry Law Group, Jonathan Andry, or AndryLerner, LLC.

For some reason, this Andry Law Firm motion/memo specifically cites the comments about the Freeh report by class counsel (document 11463) that was stricken from the record last week, followed immediately by the withdrawal of the AndryLerner pleading on the same issue. Maybe their attorneys didn't get the order.

Does anyone know the status of the civil RICO suit (10-2749) brought against BP by Jon Andry, Fayard, Herman, Roy, etc.?