Monday, April 07, 2014

DHECC - Comment Bump, April 7, 2014

This comment and answer by CALPH came in on the Nagin post and I wanted to repost it because I think the explanation is very concise and to the point (something I admittedly have a hard time with).  

I forget how complicated this whole story is as I'm writing post to post and I also realize the whole format of the blog is not easily navigable when trying to find answers to basic questions.  Not much I can do about the format issue as I have to use Blogger because it's free and I only have donations as financial support.  But I also realize I need to make a better effort to explain things from a panoptic view from time to time because there are so many people out there that are suffering from this oil spill who have filed claims and don't understand why they haven't been paid or why they are now continually being asked to resubmit documents.  The answer to those questions are here on the blog, they're just not in a concise format.  Blogging doesn't lend itself to summary.     

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "It never gets boring here....really...": 

After reading what I could find on the web I came across your site and wonder if you can explain what or who is the PSC. 

I guess I’m what they call a member and extremely upset with the attorney’s that took this away from Gccf. My claim was about to be paid when I received a notice that the whole thing was going to change and they would contact me with a list of additional documents. I’ve submitted my claim over a year ago and after receiving request after request for more documents they still haven’t paid me.

Calph has left a new comment on your post "It never gets boring here....really...": 

Anon-

The Plaintiff's Steering Committee is a group of attorneys assigned by Judge Carl Barbier to lead the process of handling damage claims from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. They also get a larger share of the legal fees for the settlement. 

PSC mwembers include Brian H. Barr, Jeffrey A. Breit, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Philip F. Cossich, Jr., Robert T. Cunningham, Alphonso Michael Espy, Calvin C. Fayard, Jr., Robin L. Greenwald, Ervin A. Gonzalez, Rhon E. Jones, Matthew E. Lundy, Michael C. Palmintier, Paul M. Sterbcow. Scott Summy, and Mikal C. Watt.


As Jason has done an excellent job of covering, the PSC has engaged is some dubious practices that call the integrity of the entire settlement process into question. I'd encourage you to read the full American Zombie archives for details.

Also...this post and video may help answer some of your questions, Anon:

A DHECC road map


Now that I think about it...it may be time for another Voice Over video.  

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

How long ago did you make this video, boy how things change after all that time no one knew BP was mining and preparing their appeals.

No wonder payments were slow coming out, look at the appeals filed they spiked in Aug 2013 table 7. The table 6 supports your arguments for expedited claims Nov 2012 was the highest month of payments everything went downhill once the judge approve the settlement.

http://www.deepwaterhorizoneconomicsettlement.com/docs/statistics.pdf

Found a press release and statement from the PSC for Anonymous:

NEW ORLEANS, March, 3, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) spearheading the litigation surrounding the 2010 BP Gulf Oil Spill today announced that a settlement in principle has been reached with BP that will fully compensate hundreds of thousands of victims of the tragedy.

The settlement is to be fully funded by BP, with no cap on the amount BP will pay. BP is obligated to fully satisfy all eligible claims under the terms of the Court supervised settlement, irrespective of the funds previously set aside.

The agreement will resolve the majority of private economic loss, property damage and medical injury claims stemming from the Gulf Oil Spill. The settlement will hold BP fully accountable to individuals and businesses harmed by the spill.

Stephen J. Herman and James P. Roy, Plaintiffs' Co-Liaison Counsel said, "We are extremely pleased to bring justice to those harmed by the BP Gulf Oil Spill. This settlement will provide a full measure of compensation to hundreds of thousands -- in a transparent and expeditious manner under rigorous judicial oversight. It does the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people."

I think their numbers are a little off only 43,000 unique claimants paid. The settlement will provide hundreds of thousands of DENIED Claims would have been the proper statement back then.
IN-HALE

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

IN-HALE,

You're right....video is outdated but generally accurate.

"Stephen J. Herman and James P. Roy, Plaintiffs' Co-Liaison Counsel said, "We are extremely pleased to bring justice to those harmed by the BP Gulf Oil Spill. This settlement will provide a full measure of compensation to hundreds of thousands -- in a transparent and expeditious manner under rigorous judicial oversight. It does the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people."

The irony....it's too much for me.

Anonymous said...

No the video is accurate it all makes sense when you tie the statistics charts together with the emails and BP's appeals.

Maybe you missed your calling as a fortune teller do you have a crystal ball on your table.

By ball is telling me indictments and blood in the streets once they start turning on each other. To many firms spent hundreds of thousands in submitting these claims. Keep in mind each firm spends anywhere from 3 to 30 grand just to calculate and submit. Plus we follow up on bogus incomplete letters and wrongful determinations on Zones & Classifications.

IN-HALE

Anonymous said...

This not the DHECC anymore. It is not even the GCCF. It is The Freeh Group. Nothing is the same. Most, if not all, of the claimant friendly policies are no longer adhered to.
Look at the Freeh claw back motion. The policy in place when the claim was filed did not require affidavits from customers. Freeh says it is required.
Policy allowed tax returns to be filed at anytime. Freeh claims that is fraudulent.
Policy allowed trip tickets OR tax returns. Freeh says no.
Any law firm that is counting on BEL claims is sol. Of course, most of the connected firms already got paid.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

"Of course, most of the connected firms already got paid."

And maybe the PSC aplogist with the law firm from D.C. area will chime back in and try and tell us why it's not a big deal, again.

That and the Barbier apologist who said there's not much he can do.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

...and you know....if they do turn on each other...I feel no satisfaction.

It still doesn't get the people paid that truly suffered from this crime.

I don't know man....I don't have any answers. I sure don't have any "faith". I feel like all I can do is try and tell the people of the Gulf who really fucked them over. BP didn't act alone....no way.

Anonymous said...

"And maybe the PSC aplogist with the law firm from D.C. area will chime back in and try and tell us why it's not a big deal, again.

That and the Barbier apologist who said there's not much he can do. "

Same guy.

Anonymous said...

Anon, just curious, but when you said "The settlement will provide hundreds of thousands of DENIED Claims would have been the proper statement back then," were you implying that you filed a bunch of claims that were eventually denied? If so, couldn't you tell ahead of time that the claims didn't fit the causation criteria or whatever element that led to the denial? We filed a few claims that got denied, but I bet no more than three or four out of 180 or so claims were denied and in each case it was either because we discovered an error in the financials that, when corrected, made the claim fail causation or they were claims with a possible technical flaw (like one that was possibly outside of the zones, depending on how you interpret the zoning rules, or one that maybe should have been filed as a failed business or another type of claim but when that became clear they didn't have the documents to meet the customer mix test). We always ether agreed with the denial (due to it never really meeting causation in the first place) or knew it was a strong possibility due to preexisting flaws such as potentially being outside the zone or falling into an excluded category (despite using a non-excluded NAICS code). Our firm hasn't experienced any problems with high denial rates or anything like that, and, in fact, I don't know of any other law firms involved in filing BP claims that had lots of claims denied. I'm curious about why you did, if that is what you meant by the above statement. We typically knew exactly what each claim was worth before even filing it, and in each of the 50-60 or so Eligibility Notices we got came out within 5% to 10% of our estimate if they varied from it at all. Many claims came out with the exact number we predicted.

Anonymous said...

Obviously all of your BEL claims were prior to the Freeh Group takeover.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

""And maybe the PSC aplogist with the law firm from D.C. area will chime back in and try and tell us why it's not a big deal, again.

That and the Barbier apologist who said there's not much he can do. "

Same guy."

Anon, before I entertain your cyclical, constantly shifting questions....I want to ask you a question:

Are you a member of, or do you work for, a federal agency? Do you work for a private company that is contracted by a federal agency?

You said you have a law firm based in D.C....is your office in the actual District or is it in Maryland or Virginia?

Anonymous said...

How does a law firm in DC represent so many claimants that "180 or so" were processed in less than the first year. Not likely, unless he is not talking about BEL claims.

Anonymous said...

First I’d like to say that Jason alone on his AZ blog has always taken the position for the little guy and is fighting to level the playing field. His efforts have brought more awareness to this issue then any media outlet taking marching orders or BP advertising dollars.

For you to request Jason to provide additional proof publicly lends me to believe you also have much to lose if he exposes what he believes to be the truth. By reading his post Jason surly has other sensitive document but is being cautious due to the severity of these potential charges.

For my response to your questions on the DENIED CLAIMS.

My statement was directed to all the claimants that filed without representation this settlement like GCCF claimed that all you needed was to file your documents fill out a form and presto an offer would be made. The current stats show that the people / class members are losing this fight and the PSC haven’t intervened on their behalf. New policies continue to surface with the data gleamed, all intended to trim the payable claims. Please take the time and list out of the 495 polices which ones help the claimant. These are the feeling expressed by our new clients as we turn around these bogus incomplete letters.

We do not currently have denied claims although the court vendors have consistently assigned improper Classifications and Zones on some of our cases we’ve seen the same trend on new clients seeking help.This trend always triggers a request for more documents or assigns a stronger causation requirement not needed, if it goes unnoticed or unanswered they eventually receives the Incomplete Denial.

Jason like many of us wonder was this part of the negotiations between BP and the PSC take the 600mm and sit on your hands. I remember when they both fought so hard to sell the settlement on us but recently they turn their backs as claims die. Another challenge please make a list of what the PSC now “class counsel” has done in the last several months for the class members!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry to admit this but these misleading statements created a false hope to us and very desperate individuals and business owners along the Gulf. Then you add the recent discovery that BP was mining the data months in advance preparing the appeal in the event an offer made it out of the process do you believe this is TRULY A FAIR FIGHT.

“I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”
IN-HALE

Anonymous said...

In Hale is right. The claimants now are getting the same treatment perfected by the insurance companies after Katrina. The Freeh Group has taken over and they have huge incentive$ to deny and delay. Alleged investigations are just a diversion.

Anonymous said...

"Obviously all of your BEL claims were prior to the Freeh Group takeover."

Of course I'm talking about claims processed prior to Freeh stepping in. No claims have been approved or denied since the "freeh group takeover," whatever that is. I have no idea how many claims will be impacted by Policy 495, but it will be a lot. Hopefully that policy won't be approved by Barbier. The PSC made a fairly good attack on it in several respects, but I wish they had done more. I'll see a ton of denials if its approved though. Everybody will. The matching decision will prove to be very bad for claimants I'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

"Are you a member of, or do you work for, a federal agency? Do you work for a private company that is contracted by a federal agency?"

No, and no. I frequently oppose federal and state agencies. Mainly HHS/CMS, but we are also opposite the DOJ & FBI from time to time. We don't do criminal work though, so its rare for us to encounter the DOJ/FBI. Some of my partners used to work for the DOJ though. Not many, but at least two were former DOJ prosecutors.

"You said you have a law firm based in D.C....is your office in the actual District or is it in Maryland or Virginia?"

The main office is on Wisconsin Ave in D.C., not Maryland or Virginia. We also have offices in Baton Rouge (just 3 attys though), Houston, & San Antonio. All "satellite" offices are small & all support staff, etc is in DC. Some of us just more or less work remotely by opening small offices in our home states rather than pick up & move to DC.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

Ok, fair enough, but one more question.

" We filed a few claims that got denied, but I bet no more than three or four out of 180 or so claims were denied "

You're stating your firm, from D.C., had approx. 180 claims...or let's say 176 claims....PAID before this process ground to a halt? Before the stay? You're saying 176 claims from a single firm based in D.C. were paid?

Anonymous said...

"How does a law firm in DC represent so many claimants that "180 or so" were processed in less than the first year. Not likely, unless he is not talking about BEL claims."

We haven't had 180 processed. Far from it. If I had to guess, we've gotten around 50-60 eligibility notices in total. Not all of those got paid though because some are still stuck in appeals. Some were even finished with the entire appeals process and were simply waiting in "final payment processing" stage when the stay hit. It sucks. The claims that were issued eligibility notices were approved between August 2012 and whenever the final stay was put into place the next fall. All but one or two were BEL claims though. We probably don't represent 180 different claimants though. Many of our clients have to file multi-facility claims, so one client may have 10 or 15 claims out of 100+ potential claiming locations. Our clients are all over the county, including each of the states involved in the BP settlement, so that's partially why we have so many claims. The other reason is some of us from every office were born & raised in one of these states, and started out and/or currently practicing law there. We have lawyers in more states than we have offices.

Anonymous said...

"You're stating your firm, from D.C., had approx. 180 claims...or let's say 176 claims....PAID before this process ground to a halt? "

My comment wasn't clear. That's my fault. We filed that many claims total. Maybe 50-60 tops were fully processed. Less than that got paid before the stay. Probably 15-20 of those were either stuck in appeals or awaiting payment when it stopped. I'm from Louisiana and practice in Baton Rouge. If you don't know who I am, I'll email you directly and you can just call me up to chat if you have any questions. Like I said, I'm not involved in any of this investigation crap & have zero inside connections, but would always be happy to give you whatever insight I've picked up since I got involved with the settlement. I like your blog very much & think you are doing good work. I just don't see the sampling issue the same way as you, based on what I've seen & read on here and experienced through filing claims. I don't know your email though, so list it & I'll gladly "reveal" myself to you. I figured you could find out easily via your server data, but Im no tech wizard so maybe I was wrong.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

"Anon,....you said, ""sampling" never existed. It was made up in hindsight. That is easy enough to prove. " Jason, you seem to voice similar sentiments. I'm with Kevin on this, where is the beef? "

First...I am providing beef on this blog. I have been writing this story for about a year and I have methodically proven many of the allegations brought up by my sources involved in the story. If you are just coming here within the last few weeks or last month, you may not be aware of the tremendous amount of work I've done on this story so I'll refrain from telling you to go fuck yourself for saying "Where's the beef?"

Secondly, what I have stated that I BELIEVE, is that the expedited claims had nothing to do with the purported sampling program as Juneau claimed. I am working on substantiating this but at the moment I can not state this definitively.

Thirdly, there may have been a sampling program but there IS NO COURT RECORD of the discussion about it as Juneau claimed nor is there any mention of it in the transcript of the fairness hearing nor is it mentioned anywhere in the email chains which I published revealing the expedited claims.

I cannot prove a negative. I have done due diligence and asked Mr. Juneau for ANY court record, particularly a minute entry, that references this purported sampling program. I have been very transparent about this, publishing the requests I made and to who I made them.

"Here's why I say that: I'm not a member of the PSC and am more or less just a nobody lawyer in this litigation who just happened to file some claim for my clients, YET, despite that, I still knew about the "sampling"/expediting of a limited number of claims WELL BEFORE the fairness hearing. I was told about it by my law firm's officially assigned "contact" at Brown Greer and I believe Juneau even issued something in writing mentioning it. "

Great...Where's the Beef? Show me. That's called hearsay...you're a lawyer aren't you? You recognize that, huh?

"Our contact would basically say, "well, the general rule is that claims are reviewed in the order received, however,...the CAO also needs to expedite a sample of newly filed claims and certain types of claims in order for the parties and the court to have an accurate picture of all of the claims.""

That doesn't explain the claims expedited for the PSC members. And name your contact....who was the contact who told you this?

cont.....

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

cont....

"I'm aware that BP gave you a response that CAN BE interpreted as a half-hearted denial of knowledge about the sampling, but it's nowhere remotely close to being as air tight as you think"

It's a hell a lot more airtight than the evidence you just gave me to the contrary. It's sourced, it's dated, its verifiable, it's transparent....it exists. Don't lecture me on conjecture dude, so far that's all you've provided. And in that respect...I'm still trying very hard not tell you to go fuck yourself.

"Either they, or Juneau is lying to you,.....but only Juneau has communicated his story to the court."

Has he communicated it to the court? We don't know that. Has the court recognized it? No...the court has not recognized what Juneau said to this blog. In fact...they just denied the Lerner motion without any response or explanation. Barbier has neither confirmed or denied his prior knowledge of a sampling program or the PSC's expedited claims.

"Under this fact pattern, where everything was done with either (1) Barbier's and Juneau's knowledge, or (2) just Juneau's knowledge, what crime, EXACTLY, do you think was committed?"

That's not the crime I think may have been committed by Barbier. I think Barbier may be guilty of obstruction of justice for 1. denying Christine Reitano due process and 2. ignoring the issue of the expedited claims and not providing those accused by Special Master Freeh with the discovery material they requested to verify Juneau's claims.

I believe he has also breached his fiduciary duty to the class by not having the Special Master investigate what actually happened.

I also think there could be a 3rd issue with Barbier if he indeed did have this discussion about the expedited claims and the sampling program with the PSC and Juneau and failed to create any court record of the discussion. I don't think that's a crime but if he did have this discussion without BP's knowledge then he's conducted an ex parte discussion with no court record of the matter.

cont....

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

cont...

"They would be true fools to concoct a scheme like this that only benefits themselves and yet requires the participation of so many unrelated third parties with supervisory control over different aspects of the process (Juneau, his staff, BG, PWC, P&N, GCG, etc). I don't doubt for a second that they did something completely self serving by using their own claims for the sample, but your theory as I understand it requires a conspiracy between the PSC, Juneau, and the contractors so broad in scope that only an idiot would think they could get away with it"

Or if they knew they had the Judge in their pocket. A judge that does things like move Reitano's breach of contract suit into his own court then stay it so she can't be deposed. Or simply deny Lerner's request for discovery to find out what is really going on with the expedited claims.

You can call me a conspiracy theorist all you want bro....I can also call you a naive douche. But I won't do that.

"If they weren't bribing Juneau, or otherwise improperly influencing him, then you would have a crime on your hands, but without something like that, this is a dead end story mainly characterized by misunderstandings and unproven assumptions on your part."

In case you missed it, in his brief Lionel Sutton stated that Juneau had him expedite a claim for one of his friends. It had nothing to do with a sampling program....nothing....nada...zilch. I believe I know who this claim was expedited for and I think there may have even been a quid pro quo situation involved. That's called a bribe...at the very least it's nepotistic if I am correct on the recipient of the claim. So you can cherry pick items out of the fray all day long and try to shoot holes in them, that isn't going to change the mountain of evidence listed on this blog and already entered into the court record.

"Those emails don't prove what you think they prove. Sorry, but your bias is interfering with your judgement if that's all you've got to support your narrative."

The emails prove this: The PSC, with Juneau's consent, were expediting their own claims. In fact, they were expediting their largest claims according to the Fayard email.

That...is substantiated fact that Juneau did not deny.

What those emails don't prove...is that these claims were part of any kind of sampling program or that they were remotely random. So far....THERE IS NO PROOF of that...none.

So sorry dude...your bias is interfering with your judgement in respect to the evidence presented on this blog and in the court record as opposed to the hearsay you're offering but in that respect, you would make a great Freeh employee.

Anonymous said...

"Please take the time and list out of the 495 polices which ones help the claimant."....and suggesting that the appeals this far haven't been a "fair fight?"

Are you kidding? Seriously, you don't think this was the easiest and most generous claims process ever devised? The "matching policy," Policy 495, might be a claim killer, but before that they couldn't possibly make the process easier,...even if we did have to deal with a bunch of nonsensical incomplete notices from time to time. Anybody who thinks that the pre-matching/pre-stay process was difficult better hire a lawyer or at least a CPA soon because they'll have no chance under the new process if 495 is adopted. Any suggestion that they were too hard on claimants or asked for too much supporting detail/documents is flat out insane. Hell, any suggestion that the questions currently coming from reviewers are too onerous is almost just as ludicrous. Which policies before 495 are claimant friendly though? Um,...the vast majority are claimant friendly or neutral. What do you think BP's appeals are all about? Juneau & Barbier being too easy on them?

Anonymous said...

Jason, your argument is shit right now based on what you've made public to date. It just is. However, I didn't make the allegations, you did. If you think you've proven them, you don't understand evidence or apply good logic I'm happy to help you improve your argument, despite your thinly veiled insults. If you didn't react so violently to people with opposing views, maybe someone already would have done so. I'm not saying you don't have evidence, but I am saying that evidence doesn't say or suggest the things you say they do. Did BP tell you that they didn't know about the sampling? No they didn't. They didn't say they did know, but how is any of that behavior new for BP? Hurry,...STOP THE PRESSES: BP claims it wasn't aware of something that the PSC and Juneau say they did understand! That's a real hot story you got there. If Juneau, BP, and the PSC knew,....WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS THE ONLY STORY FROM ANYONE INVOLVED, then there is no scandal. At least not one with disciplinary or criminal implications. Unless and until you have actual evidence that BP wasn't aware of it, then you have no story. Presumably, IF BP wasn't aware, they will say so in court, don't you think? I'm afraid that if you can't uncover that fact, then you will one day look back and realize that you've wasted a bunch of your time chasing a lead down a dead end street. If you would like some constructive criticism off line AND can behave yourself like a professional, then I really would be more than willing to discuss and share with you whatever I have or know. I'm not your enemy dude, but if you keep acting like I am I'll never offer to help you again. You are taking all of this WAY too personally. I can easily respond to every attack you lobbed at me, but as we are both learning through these long posts back and forth, its not a discussion that is easily handled through comments on a blog. You need to chill though and not get so angry at people poking holes in your theory. My observations shouldn't get under your skin so much. Your defending too much for a journalist. Give me your email & I'll contact you if you like.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

You still haven't provided anything tangible to discredit my work....nothing.....nothing.

You can insult me all you want and call my "journalistic integrity" in to question but at the end of this comment section you still have jack shit to discredit me.

I am providing tangible evidence. You are providing nothing save opinion.

Anonymous said...

Without more, your evidence discredits itself Jason. Insult you though? That's a laugh. Your the only one insulting people here. You haven't provided tangible evidence of shit. You just think you have. Your hunch might be right, but you haven't even come remotely close to proving it yet. All I've done is offer to help, and, by the way, provide you with whatever I have in my possession related to the matter. Even though you are being incredibly rude, I will, one last time, offer to provide you with whatever I have and discuss everything I know with you off line. If you act like a prick though, I'll promptly hang up and never help you again. Your call. This will be my last post on this blog either way though.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

Help me? Help me? With what? You don't have anything to help me with. If you do then fucking send it and I will post it front and center.

You're calling me a prick when you're discrediting over one year of work I've put into this story by saying "Your evidence is shit!"....with no tangible evidence to validate that or refute me. You insulted me numerous times before I answered your questions.

I answered EVERY question you posed to me. You came back with, "Blah...blah..blah...you're shit!". All I see is you whining.

Put up or shut up. My email is front and center on the blog...it's right there.

ashedambala@gmail.com

But don't send me some whiny-ass bullshit...if you don't have anything tangible don't waste any more of my time.

Anonymous said...

“Fair Fight”

Are you kidding? Seriously, you don't think this was the easiest and most generous claims process ever devised? The "matching policy," Policy 495, might be a claim killer, but before that they couldn't possibly make the process easier,...even if we did have to deal with a bunch of nonsensical incomplete notices from time to time. Anybody who thinks that the pre-matching/pre-stay process was difficult better hire a lawyer or at least a CPA soon because they'll have no chance under the new process if 495 is adopted. Any suggestion that they were too hard on claimants or asked for too much supporting detail/documents is flat out insane. Hell, any suggestion that the questions currently coming from reviewers are too onerous is almost just as ludicrous. Which policies before 495 are claimant friendly though? Um,...the vast majority are claimant friendly or neutral. What do you think BP's appeals are all about? Juneau & Barbier being too easy on them?

Well you just confirmed Jason’s point all along this was promoted as a simple Do - It -Yourself.

On Oct 8 2012 this paper reported and quoted Juneau.

http://www.newsherald.com/news/business/bp-more-claims-more-money-1.26963?page=0

The claims process Juneau has inherited is much different than the one used by his predecessor. The legal group that set up the system insisted it be done in a way that was fair across the board.

“There are thousands of legitimate bona fide claims that have not been filed,” he said. “My rule is, when in doubt, file.”

Juneau said that since June 4 his team has been doing what it could to settle old claims while building the computer programs and workforce to handle the new claims process. At “the tail end” of what he termed an “elaborate system,” Juneau said claims would start to be paid.

“My goal was to make payments, and we made our first payments in July of this year,” he said. “In the past two weeks our numbers have spiked. We’re going to see some spikes in the next two weeks.”

This one is my favorite!!!!! On June 5,2012

http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2012/06/pat_juneau_new_bp_spill_settle.html

Juneau said that if business owner is in doubt about his eligibility, they should still go ahead and submit a claim. "We want people to file," he said. "Whether it's eligible or not is another question, but we'll sort it all out for them."

Our clients and the ones that hired firms that didn’t believe this pile of BS knew if they should opted - out.

What Jason is fighting for are the ones that believed this stuff.

If 495 passes will you stand with us and request another opt - out date?

And can you agree that the settlement trapped these pro see claimants amended the rules and compensation amounts so much that the settlement entered will be completely different after 495.

IN-HALE

Anonymous said...

Even without 495, the rules have changed. Any semblance of "claimant friendly" disappeared when Freeh Group took over. I have had clients that were previously pro se, get claims rejected with the only explanation given was that the forms were not filled out properly. But not told what part was wrong. The kicker is that the forms were actually filled out by one if the claimant assist centers.