Wednesday, June 04, 2014

DHECC - Lionel Sutton Interview Part 3 - recipe for a zombie

In the third installment of the Lionel Sutton interview series, I’m going to focus on the investigation conducted by Special Master Louis Freeh which led to Sutton, his wife Christine Reitano, and the Andry Lerner Law Firm being accused of various criminal activity.   Specifically, we will examine how, in Reitano’s case, these allegations led to termination from the Claims Office.

Fraud    ...       

Before we get into the nuances of the "Freeh Style" investigation techniques, I want to show you a particular sound byte regarding fraudulent seafood claims.

Folks have criticized me for “burying the lead” in past posts, and I think they have a damn good point so let’s kick this post off with a bang:

Lionel Sutton - 15 - Page 60 - 2.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

A disclaimer:  Lionel qualified this statement by saying he was not absolutely sure that this particular instance of fraud is what Louis Freeh was referring to on page 60 of his first report.  The only person who knows that, for sure, is Louis Freeh.  Unfortunately, it appears Freeh lost the scent and we may never know what firm he was talking about.  

Good news is it doesn’t matter.  Fraud has been alleged....now we all know.

Let me restate this revelation ….A plaintiff steering committee firm filed FRAUDULENT seafood claims....multiple.  After it was discovered by employees in the Claims Office it was brought to the attention of the Claims Administrator, Pat Juneau. 

According to Sutton, Pat simply told the firm not to do it again...a mere slap on the hand.  

This epiphany begs the question, "Were the fraudulent claims paid out even after it was brought to the attention of the Claims Administrator?" 

Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing that unless Juneau addresses the matter, publicly.  

Chew on this whole thing for a second....then let's take a look at the issues Freeh's first report addressed.

Lying liars who lie?

I think it's preposterous to assume Louis Freeh isn't aware of this PSC firm's fraudulent seafood claims.  And I can’t imagine Judge Barbier doesn’t know about it considering Sutton wrote it down in a memo of opposition his attorney filed with the Court

Understand this.....these falsified claims by the PSC firm are ILLEGAL.  

Please consider the gravitas here….a PSC firm used their knowledge of the claims process to manipulate and file false seafood claims.  This wasn't a simple scam to milk BP, it is detrimental to the other class seafood claimants.

Lionel explains why in this byte:  


If this allegation is true.....Juneau is absolutely complicit in a cover up.  Freeh is complicit if he doesn’t act against the firm.  Judge Barbier is complicit if he doesn’t demand that Louis Freeh make the allegations public and suggest criminal charges be brought against the firm in the same way Freeh did to Sutton and Reitano.

A disclaimer...

I know who the alleged firm is…at least the one Sutton is referring to in these sound bytes.  But that doesn't mean it's the same firm Freeh was referring to on page 60. 

I also know how the seafood claims were manipulated, in fact I expounded on it in this post.

I plan on revealing who this PSC firm is soon but I want to validate the story through one more source (the 4th) and I want to give the firm an opportunity to respond to the allegations.  I also have a standing request to interview Pat Juneau that has yet to be acknowledged.


Justice isn't Freeh

The real question mark that arises from this revelation is why would Freeh be protecting the PSC firm?  Why would Judge Barbier allow it?  Most importantly, was Louis Freeh really brought into the picture to actually conduct an unbiased investigation? 

Finally…has Freeh even come close to conducting an unbiased investigation?

The litmus test for those questions lies with Freeh’s charges against Christine Reitano more so than Lionel Sutton.  Sutton explains the allegations Freeh brought against Reitano in this byte, also, he talks about the evidence Freeh accrued to make the charges:

Lionel Sutton - -8 -Chrisitne and Mancuso.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

To recap here, Freeh claimed Reitano knew her husband,  Lionel Sutton, was getting the referral fee on the Thonn claim and she then lied to his investigators about it under oath.  

Lionel states in this byte that Christine absolutely did not know about the referral fee because he never told her.

I know it's difficult to digest but if there's one thing I've learned from writing this blog, never assume a wife knows what a husband is doing...and vice-versa.  I can quote you  three husband/wife scenarios I've written about on this blog where this fact holds true....Bennett, Ellis, St. Pierre...Meffert.  OK, that's four....number five is forever grateful I stopped at four.  
                                                                               
Freeh also stated that Reitano was using her position at the Claims Office to negotiate a larger referral fee for Sutton with the Andry Lerner firm.  His basis for this statement was a phone conversation Reitano had with Andry Lerner attorney,  Christine Mancuso. 

Reitano vehemently denied this allegation after Freeh released his report.  In fact, even Mancuso denied the allegation Freeh made against Reitano.  

Here Sutton discusses how Freeh obtained the evidence to levy his allegations:

Lionel Sutton - 9 - Freeh no deposition, acct false accusation.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

No actual affidavits or depositions were taken by the Freeh group in their investigation with the exception of Pat Juneau, Lionel Sutton and Christine Reitano.  Instead, the investigators "interpreted" the witnesses’ testimony.  

Now,  two of these witnesses have come forward to contradict the allegations made in the Freeh report.

Purgatory 

What’s more, Judge Barbier has denied the accused parties' request for discovery, including their ability to take their own depositions with the key witnesses:

Lionel Sutton - 11 - Not allowed discovery.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Not only has the Court denied the accused the right to discovery and due process, Barbier had Christine Reitano’s "breach of contract" lawsuit against the Claims Office (and BP) removed from civil court and into his own court.

There, it lies in limbo:

Lionel Sutton - 16 - Reitano issues and MDL.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Why would Barbier deny Reitano her civil rights and bury this case?  I humbly ask, "Does that constitute obstruction of justice?" 

They are being denied the right to face their accuser and question witnesses in order to argue their innocence.  How is that legal?  

A zombie?

In the next segment, I'll address impetus. Most notably why both Freeh and Judge Barbier seem intent on protecting the PSC firm that filed the fraudulent claims .  Also, why the Judge is denying Andry Lerner, Sutton…and most importantly, Reitano…due process.  





--> hounds kuzimu uchaguzi wako

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Can you explore, in detail, what makes what the "page 60" law firm did on some of the seafood claims it filed fraudulent? I'm not saying they didn't do something horrifically fraudulent, but after reading all of your posts on the matter, I still don't know what they did that constitutes actual fraud. Here are some quotes from your recent posts that helps explain where my confusion is coming from:

"A plaintiff steering committee firm filed FRAUDULENT seafood claims....multiple"

"According to Sutton, Pat simply told the firm not to do it again...a mere slap on the hand."

"Understand this.....these falsified claims by the PSC firm are ILLEGAL."

"I also know how the seafood claims were manipulated, in fact I expounded on it in this post."

In the other post you reference in the above quote, you made the statement that: "There are basically two ways to assess this, tax returns and "trip tickets". You then provided your initial feelings as to what you thought might be going on. However, your explanation was made really early on in your investigation and may have changed since then based on the fact that the scenario you put forth originally is the opposite of what Freeh said was happening in his report. Specifically, you argue that trip tickets may have been manipulated, but Freeh's whole complaint is that the claimants were using (more favorable) tax returns, not trip tickets. So, manipulation of trip ticket data (which ultimately wasn't used at all) wouldn't have helped Thonn or the others Freeh mentions and wouldn't inflate their claims if trip ticket data was not even used. Below is how Freeh explained the problem:

From Freeh report:
"In interviews conducted with the DHECC Quality Control Group, it was pointed out that BG noticed that several claimants from AndryLerner and another law firm were submitting claims in which the claimants’ tax returns were significantly more favorable than their trip tickets, as was the case with Mr. Thonn."


If claimants were allowed to support their seafood claims with EITHER (1) trip tickets, or (2) tax returns, and the Settlement agreement expressly states that the claim reviewers are to utilize the claimant's supporting documentation in a way that produces the maximum amount of reimbursement allowable under the settlement, then how are these claims fraudulent simply because one allowable method resulted in a larger method than another allowable method that wasn't used? I must be missing something major. I understand that Thonn filed inaccurate/fraudulent tax returns (which is clearly fraudulent), BUT, had he filed correct returns, I understand that his claim would have been considered perfectly payable despite the fact that it was much larger than it would have been if it were calculated based on trip ticket data instead of tax returns. If that's true, then unless there is some OTHER evidence that the "page 60" firm did something not allowed by the terms of the settlement agreement, then I don't understand how you get to the conclusion that they did something "ILLEGAL" or otherwise fraudulent. Hell, if using either form of documentation is ok, then I can't even figure out how Juneau could justify telling the "page 60" firm or any others to stop doing something that is allowed under the settlement (I.e., using more favorable tax returns instead of trip tickets).

Help me understand what I am missing here. This is all very fascinating to me.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

Essentially, they fudged numbers in order to qualify for a larger payout. They purposely falsified claimants' income.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

It's not just choosing tax returns over trip tickets....it's actually fudging the numbers.

Kevin said...

Lionel:

Were the investigator notes or report of the Interview of Benjamin Arceneaux/Kyle Neathery (July 24, 2013)produced to you as part of the Freeh documents Judge Barbier allowed to be disclosed?

If so, do those interview notes identify the "other law firm" submitting claims in which the claimants’ tax returns were significantly more favorable than their trip tickets?

Do you know if the DHECC has also conducted an internal audit into the Seafood Compensation Program claims represented by the "other law firm", or did the DHECC just audit the AndryLerner Firm?

Anonymous said...

Ok, so it was actual data manipulation, not a choice that just happened to cost BP a lot more money than the other option. That makes more sense.

So, the "page 60" firm must have filed fraudulent amended tax returns for their clients to increase their income in the right years prior to the spill, or they created or knowingly used forged/fraudulent tax returns that were never actually filed with the IRS (i,e, like Thonn) but were instead created just for use with their BP claim? After all, there would be no reason to suspect that any particular tax return filed prior to the settlement coming out was fraudulently altered or misstated revenues in manner designed to artificially inflate a claim against BP years down the road. I guess those "page 60" firm fraudulent claims must have involved amended or fake tax returns in some way.

I don't know which side was right in the Thonn claim situation, but that dispute didn't start over tax returns. At first it was all about referral fees. Regardless, I do recall there at least being actual evidence of fraud such as returns being submitted with the claim that didn't match with the ones on file with the IRS, etc. On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone, including Sutton, explain what, exactly Freeh found that suggested fraud. I expected him to mention something specific about the fraudulent nature of the mystery PSC firm's actions, but he never really addressed that head on. I remember when I first read Freeh's report that this allegation, at least as it was described in the report, seemed more like it was just a misunderstanding on Freeh's part because he didn't know that the settlement actually allowed the use of tax returns or trip tickets, whichever was more favorable. I thought that was just an excusable mistake by Freeh since he just recently started working on BP settlement issues at that time and it might reasonably appear suspect to an outsider if you didn't know that what they did was expressly allowed. The reason I'm so curious about the specifics of how they acted fraudulently is because I initially thought Freeh was just misinterpreting perfectly appropriate behavior (at least on this particular issue).

Sutton said...

Notes of that interview were provided as part of the discovery that was allowed.
The notes are 206 typed lines. All but 12 lines were completely blacked out.
The 12 lines do not reveal in other law firms. They do acknowledge that it was common for tax returns to be higher than trip tickets and that there was a pattern in all claims to attribute as much income as possible to shrimping because the settlement was written more favorably for shrimpers.

Kevin said...


Would any reader knowing the answer(s) to any of the following questions, please post the answers?

Of the Andry "law entities" (Andry Law Firm, LLC; Andry Law Group, LLC; or AndryLerner, LLC), which is the entity that contributed $165,000 in assessments to the PSC prior to 12/31/12 to be used for the common benefit of all plaintiffs in MDL 2179?

Was it disclosed by David Duval to the DHECC that, in addition to representing individual clients, the family law firm also contributed $215,000 in common benefit assessments by 12/31/12?

These assessments, along with another $19 million for class counsel and other common benefit attorneys, were reimbursed in February 2013. It looks like these firms stand to receive some common benefit fees, too.

Kevin said...


Sutton at June 4, 2014 at 2:46:00 PM CDT, said:

"They do acknowledge that it was common for tax returns to be higher than trip tickets and that there was a pattern in all claims to attribute as much income as possible to shrimping because the settlement was written more favorably for shrimpers."

Thank you for the response and, particularly, the interview and the light it sheds.

Would it be correct to say that an income tax form doesn't specify or distinguish "shrimp income" from all other sources making up the total income reported in that tax form? Would it also be correct to say that trip tickets do specify what the seafood claimant said s/he actually caught and sold? Would it be accurate to say tax forms were submitted by claimants who attributed more seafood income to shrimp catches and sales even when the trip tickets could/would show otherwise?

Sutton said...

Kevin
I was not involved in seafood claims per se. That was a separate program with its own administrator. I only have a general understanding of how it operated from what I was told by others.
You are correct that tax returns do not distinguish between species and that tickets do. My understanding was that trip tickets were inherently unreliable. That program was in place to provide officials with information on catches. It was not designed for revenue verification. There could be many reasons why income tax returns would be higher. That is why the settlement allowed both.
As far as I know, as long as a claimant filed tax returns, he could use those returns to verify income. In some instances, further documentation was necessary. Even if a claimant didn't file his returns until after the settlement, it was not necessarily fatal to his claim.
In a letter to Juneau dated 12/2/13, BP acknowledged the same but argued that a 2009 tax return that was dated May 2013 and substantially increased 2009 revenue should be carefully scrutinized.
Recent filings by Freeh suggest that he may view differently, at least for certain claimants represented by firms not in his favor.

Kevin said...



Sutton at June 5, 2014 at 10:33 AM said:

"My understanding was that trip tickets were inherently unreliable. That program was in place to provide officials with information on catches. It was not designed for revenue verification."

Is it your understanding trip tickets were inherently unreliable regarding income, but were fairly reliable on what type of seafood was actually caught?

I'm trying to understand how they were able to attribute as much income as possible to shrimping versus crabbing, fin-fishing, etc., and if that's where any fraud may be taking place.

You're right. Freeh does seem to be on the trail of some trip tickets.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

My concern is that Freeh is going to after another firm other than the PSC firm in an attempt to deflect attention away from them. I'm not sure how he could justifiably do that at this point, it's now public knowledge regarding the PSC firm but I suppose he can pretty much get away with whatever he wants.

Kevin said...


Jason:

Any idea on which firm(s) Freeh is pursuing?

On another note, this goes back to your revelation of the "expedited claims" activities. You'll recall the 9/20/2012 email with the "list of new directives" from Steve Herman and Jim Roy. Item No. 3 on that list was to "cease and desist reviewing class representatives" because, if they signed a release, they can't be class reps.

That issue sparked a few questions about whether or not any of the class reps had actually signed a release before the "new directives" were given.

Turns out there were 3 class representatives - Brad Friloux, Henry Hutto, and Michael Guidry - who each had at least 1 of their claims processed and payment pending in early-August 2012.

Maybe Pat Juneau would tell you if those pending payments were made and the releases signed before Herman and Roy caught it?

sutton said...

Anon
Given Freeh's general lack of understanding of the settlement agreement, as well as his willingness to make false accusations and draw baseless conclusions just to justify his presence in this case, my guess is that page 60 was an error. However, it remains that a PSC firm was caught improperly manipulating catch data to get their private clients more money than they were entitled to. Whether that was the firm referred to on page 60, I cannot say. But a lot of people knew about it, including Juneau. So one would expect that a former FBI director getting paid over $3,000,000 per month to investigate fraud would know about it also.

Re Thonn, as far as I know, there was no allegation of fraudulent returns, Freeh just claimed that Thonn failed to file the amended return he submitted with his claim. I have no idea whether that is correct or not. Freeh only submitted hearsay evidence and we were denied the opportunity to conduct discovery or question Freeh's evidence at a hearing. What I do know is that even BP has stated that a return that is filed 3 years late is not in and of itself indicative of fraud and that David Welker had a policy of allowing claimants to file correct returns even after they were caught submitting false returns. Unfortunately, to afford Thonn that opportunity would not have fit under the bus with me.

Anonymous said...

Sutton said: "However, it remains that a PSC firm was caught improperly manipulating catch data to get their private clients more money than they were entitled to. Whether that was the firm referred to on page 60, I cannot say."

Jason said: "it's now public knowledge about the PSC firm"

Ok, so maybe we don't know which firm Freeh was referring to on page 60, or whether he was just misinterpreting the settlement or had really uncovered true wrongdoing. Either way, If I'm reading your posts correctly then both of you say that even if the page 60 reference was to another firm or wasn't describing the "data manipulation" fraud,...that there is still clear evidence that at least some PSC firm committed fraud by manipulating catch data on seafood claims. THATS THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVENT SEEN. If Freeh wasn't talking about the data manipulation allegation on page 60, then how do you know that a PSC firm did file fraudulent claims? If he was taking about the data manipulation allegation on page 60, but that's the only evidence anyone has seen that anything illegal took place, then how do you know that Freeh didn't continue pursuing that investigation because he later realized that what he thought was fraud (using more favorable tax returns) really wasn't fraud at all because the settlement expressly allows them to do that? Maybe he continued going after Thonn because he thought those returns were actually fraudulent or that he was lying on his unfiled amended return? I'm not aware of ANY evidence that any firm did anything illegal other than Freeh's comments on page 60. I'm not saying I wouldn't believe you if you had any such evidence and could provide it, but as of right now all I know that you are basing your conclusions on are those comments on page 60. I just don't see how, based solely on Freeh's comments on page 60, that anyone can conclude that the illegal nature of whatever the mystery PSC firm did is "public knowledge" or that "it remains that that a PSC firm was caught improperly manipulating catch data." Unless you have more information and evidence than you've discussed on this site, then don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to say that you "know" that they did something improper?

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

THATS THE EVIDENCE THAT I HAVENT SEEN.

I didn't realize I was the under the obligation to meet your burden of proof...I'm sorry from now on I will focus all of my time and evergy on satisfying your demands.

Lionel Sutton worked in the claims office when the claims were discovered. I have two other other sources that have validated the allegations independently from Sutton. I don't have access to those claims or any claim information because the settlement is not a public entity...can you wrap your ahead around that? The standard to publish an allegation of this nature most journalistic entities is to source the story from two independent sources...I'm trying to validate it through four.

Are you going to question my journalistic integrity now like you did a month ago? I thought you were done with this blog?

You're now accusing me of working for
Brent Coons?

Keep AstroTurfing bro...carry on.

Anonymous said...

"I have two other other sources that have validated the allegations independently from Sutton"

What allegations? That's what I'm asking about. You haven't said one thing about the specific allegations. That's all. I was just hoping you would share at least some details that describe a fraudulent act. We didn't speak to your sources, and you haven't told us what specifics they told you. All we can tell is that they told you that a PSC firm improperly manipulated catch data. How so? On what forms? Any details would be nice. I'm not doubting you, but all you've said thus far is so vague that your readers cannot tell what they did that was wrong. Sutton didn't mention anything specific either, and even said he wasn't sure about the specifics. Who was sure about them and can you give us at least a little detail? I don't doubt that you have those details, but you haven't communicated them.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

Who's we? You have a mouse in your pocket?

Once again, I don't care if you can't read the link I provided that shows one of the way the trip tickets were manipulated to increase the client's payout. I don't care if you don't believe Sutton, who was working in the office when it was discovered. I don't care if you can't understand that I don't have access to the actual claims, therefore, I cannot definitively show the claims that were manipulated.

I am not on trial in your court, nor is Lionel Sutton. The one person who can validate this is Louis Freeh and Sutton is asking him to allow him to allow him to explain how the fraud was committed....he stated that clearly in the interview. Did you watch it?

Sutton can't release the specific information on the fraudulent claims on the blog but he will to Louis Freeh.

If you think the blog of full of shit....stop reading it. You've already said you were done with it what...3 times now? Why don't you start your own blog? Or why don't you go cheerlead for the PSC attorneys on Young's blog....you'll fit right in.

You are clearly astroturffing...you have been for months. I have no obligation to meet your standards or satisfy your skepticism....none.

When I first started writing this story, I stated that the PSC attorneys expedited their own claims. That was met with cries of bullshit. Not only did I prove they were expediting their own claims I proved Pat Juneau attempted to have his friend's son's claim expedited. Now the response is..."Well you don't understand. This was part of a sampling program. Juneau had the ability to expedite claims......blah, blah blah".

I am providing solid facts, evidence and testimony from first-hand witnesses to back up the allegation being made on the blog. Every time I do, the naysayers, including you, shift the story, lower the bar, make excuses for the PSC, Juneau, the Court, Freeh, etc....and question my journalistic integrity, e.g, insinuating I'm working for Brent Coon.

So for that last one, I'm going to tell you exactly what I told you two months ago, go fuck yourself.


Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

And one more thing...you're not just astroturffing, you're phishing and I know what you're phishing for. It ain't gonna happen.

Anonymous said...

You sure are defensive. Once again, I DO NOT DOUBT YOUR REPORTING ONE BIT. You just take every question I have as an attack. I do not know why. "Who is we?" I was referring to myself and the rest of your readers. You really don't have to be such a dick. I believe you when you say that a PSC firm manipulated data. However, I did "read the link" you referred to, but all that post contained was your own (admittedly) hypothetical guess as to what was going on. You did not give any details on what your sources said actually happened. The scenario you described couldnt have been what they really did though because Freeh said that they used tax returns and not trip tickets. If your sources never gave you any specific details, then why can't you just say that and move on instead of attacking me for asking a legitimate question? I've never encountered someone as touchy as you. One last time,...I do not doubt you, but neither you, nor Sutton, nor anyone else (including Freeh) has released enough detail for people like me (who don't have inside sources) to know what the heck people like you and Sutton are so upset about. Before you get all defensuve about that statenent,....I do not say that to criticize you or anyone else. I'm just pointing out something I think you all know, but havent actually communicated to us (the readers). I'm not phishing, or astroturfing, whatever that means. I just asked obvious questions and got nothing but attacks in return. You need to see a therapist.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

Says the guy who said he was going to stop commenting on this site three times.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

Your continual effort to discredit me culminates in an attack on my mental stability? Carry on, dude ...carry on.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

And dude....you don't speak for "my readers". I hate to inform you that you're not nearly as omnipotent as you think you are.

You speak for yourself...no one else. Sycophants quite often confuse subjective reality with their master's reality. I think that's the cause for your headache.

Kevin said...


Just a factoid related to something y'all are discussing: Brent Coon and Associates, P.C. contributed assessments (cash) for the common benefit of the plaintiffs. He was reimbursed for his assessments from common benefit funds. He may even have a claim for common benefit fees.

Question: are nursing homes and rehabilitation centers and medical clinics also members of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement?

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

BTW...I typed all this on a phone on my way back to New Orleans from St. Francisville. I apologize for the grammatical errors but on the whole I think I did a damn job.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

...good...

Ashton O'Dwyer said...

I, too, agree that the coverage by "American Zombie" is fascinating. In due course, I would like to see analysis of the following: (1) With all the talk of FRAUD in the presentation of claims, how does the FRAUD allowed by the Fifth "Circus", ie. allowed claims by people and entities who suffered NO LOSSES attributable to the discharge of oil, fit into the BIG PICTURE? What's the "WORST" fraud? That committed by PSC firms like the one referred to (but not by name) on page 60 of the first Freeh report, or the FRAUD legally allowed by the Fifth "Circus"? How can a judicial system that LEGALIZES FRAUD be allowed to continue to exist? (2)Let's "shine the light" on the likes of "Judge" Southwick and "Judge" Dennis, who appear to be "owned" by the Plaintiffs' Bar. And can we also "shine the light" on their law clerks, and the Staff Attorneys, at the Fifth Circuit, and connect ANY and ALL of them to the Plaintiffs' Bar and Members of the PSC? (3) Mr. Berry, WHEN are you going to directly ask Mr. Sutton what he knows about (and what his participation was in) "the Expedited Claims Process"? (4) Mr. Berry, WHEN are you going to ask Mr. Sutton to disclose to you PRTECISELY what David Duval was doing to "help" his Uncle's and cousin's law firm and their client(s), and what he and Juneau KNEW about it, and what they did to STOP it (if anything) before it was EXPOSED (to a point - we STILL don't know too much about it). Thank you, Mr. Berry. Ashton O'Dwyer.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

Why do you think Lionel Sutton has the answers to those questions, Ashton?

Here's a newsflash, man...everyone else on the planet doesn't live inside of your head. That may be shocking for you but it's fo' true, nonetheless.

To invoke my Kentucky metaphorical repertoire, you seem like a dog that just got hit by a car.....you keep biting at every hand you see, even the ones who may be helpful.

The world isn't against you...I'm not against you. I'm just a guy trying to tell the truth, with no obligation or financial incentive to do so.

If I'm not meeting your expectations...well...that sucks for you. That doesn't mean what I'm doing isn't worth the effort.

Anonymous said...

Response to Ashton O’Dwyer Part I

1. With all the talk of FRAUD in the presentation of claims, how does the FRAUD allowed by the Fifth "Circus", ie. allowed claims by people and entities who suffered NO LOSSES attributable to the discharge of oil, fit into the BIG PICTURE?

Ok I think you’re missing what BP wanted, needed and agreed to in this settlement. Limitation to their exposure of future litigation, the proper question is to ask why all of Louisiana, Mississippi is and Alabama residents and business are now class members. How can a class member file a claim and then you refer to it as FRAUD the settlement clearly states you are a class member by the geographical locations defined in the mapping software. If you do not Opt Out you are a class member and forever barred from bringing a lawsuit against the responsible party.

BP knew from the data captured from GCCF their overall liability, they were also defending the legality of the GCCF releases when it was clear BP lied about the true amount of oil released. The PSC then conceded not to peruse the GCCF releases by excluding them as class members except for the VoO which is also highly controversial since the first 25 million in claims paid went to VoO. Read sec; 10

10. RELEASE AND DISMISSAL OF ALL CLAIMS AND OTHER PROTECTIONS.

10.2. Released Claims shall include all claims arising out of, due to, resulting from, or relating in any way to, directly or indirectly, the Deepwater Horizon Incident, including any and all actions, claims, costs, expenses, taxes, rents, fees, profit shares, liens, remedies, debts, demands, liabilities, obligations, or promises of any kind or nature whatsoever, in both law or in equity, past or present, whether known or unknown, including claims for any and all Unknown Claims or damages, future injuries, damages or losses not currently known, but which may later develop, provided they arise out of, are due to, result from, or relate in any way to, directly or indirectly, in whole or in part, the Deepwater Horizon Incident,

10.5.
Unknown Claims and damages or not currently known claims and damages (whether or not capitalized) shall mean all past, present and future claims and damages arising out of facts, including new facts or facts found hereafter to be other than or different from the facts now believed to be true, arising out of, due to, resulting from, or relating in any way to, “directly or indirectly” the Deepwater Horizon Incident covered by the Release in Section 10 that any Natural Person or Entity providing a Release, including the Plaintiffs and Economic Class Members, do not, in whole or in part, know or suspect to exist and which, if known by them, might have affected their decision to provide such Release, including all claims arising out of new facts or facts found hereafter to be other than or different from the facts now believed to be true.

IN-HALE

Ashton O'Dwyer said...

Mr. Berry (and "IN-HALE"): My rhetorical questions were NOT intended to be a criticism of Mr. Berry or American Zombie. If they were "taken" that way, I apologize. As to what Mr. Sutton knows or doesn't know, I admit that I am "speculating". But my speculation is honed by dealing with "the Plaintiffs' Bar" since 1971, and the appellation of "the go-to-guy" which AZ (I believe) attributed to Mr. Sutton, a temporary employee (Did anyone "go-to" his wife, a "permanent employee"?). Maybe we should add another series of questions tom be answered in due course: (1) Who were the INCOMPETENTS representing BP "in-house" and "out-house" who negotiated the "settlement", expanding the legal "rights" of persons who, by legal "fiction", could recover damages when THEY SUFFERED NO LOSSES IN FACT CAUSED BY THE SPILL? This was in clear violation of the provisions of OPA '90 and all other American jurisprudence on the law of damages. (2) What repercussions have these INCOMPETENTS suffered by way of FIRINGS, non-payment of legal fees, etc.? (3) Why is there no mention, not by BP's lawyers, by the Fifth "Circus", or by anyone else of the terms "void as against public policy" and "contra bonos mores"? Does NO ONE have an ounce of integrity left in him (or her)? (4)How much have the PSC and the Plaintiffs' Bar put in their pockets already, and how much will they put in their pockets in the future, attributable to "fraud"? I personally believe that the sums are SO HIGH that they could "give a shit" about what other people say about their tactics in the BP litigation. And you know what: With a Judicial system like the Fifth "Circus", they will never be "CALLED" for whatever the hell they did or will do, that some call FRAUD. Ashton O'Dwyer.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Ashton, man... it would be easier to read what you write, and to make sense of what you are asking, if you`d cut the random capitalization, and restrict your use of quotation marks to grammatically correct places for them.

You write a lot, so clearly saying what you have to say is important to you.

Spaces and indentations appropriate to the structure of your paragraphs would make what you say easier to read.

From what I`ve read over the years, it sounds as if you`ve been treated improperly on more than one occasion, and you`ve recieved little in the form of redress. I feel sympathetic.

It is a good thing that you keep trying to hold people accountable for their misdeeds.

On the other hand, you use your free speech rights to make the kind of vile racist remark that would have had mouths washed out with soap in our home. I doubt any of us ever had that kind of thought in our hearts, let alone bubbling up and out of our mouths.

You`ve got a right to free speech, and anyone who listens to you has a right to respond freely.

I doubt I`d like you if I ever met you in person, but I do respect anyone who responds to being wronged by getting vocal.

Your potentially legitimate issues and concerns are done no favors by some of the other things you give voice to, as I am sure you`ve been told many times.

Given that you are what you are, and you do seem to have some sticking power as an advocat for proper behavior as it concerns respect for due process and the rule of law, I`m going to limit my request--

Please pay more attention to normative forms of punctuation, capitalization, and paragraph structure.

That would demonstrate some respect for your readers. And, I`ll argue, it would show that you had some self respect.

It would be a sign that no matter what you tell us you`ve been through, you`ve held on to a sane measure of self control.

It may not be possible for you to attain the measure of healthy self regard you`d need to have in order to stop using casual racism as a way of trying to embiggen yourself... but you clearly made it through high school English class somewhere.

It might be nice if you applied what you learned there when you write for a public readership.

Thanks.

Anonymous said...

I missed the racist jab. What was said?