Thursday, June 12, 2014

DHECC - Lionel Sutton interview part 4 - hiding behind the robe

In this final segment of the Lionel Sutton interview, we will focus on the influence of the PSC on the Claims Office, why Judge Barbier seems intent on quashing any attempt by those accused by Louis Freeh the opportunity to defend themselves, and why both Freeh and Barbier may be protecting the PSC firm that filed the fraudulent seafood claims.

This first byte is about the influence the PSC had at the Claims Office while Sutton was there. Lionel notes that he was not involved in any policy creation and he also expounds on why the claims expedited by the PSC are such a big issue now:

Lionel Sutton - 18 - PSC Influence and policy.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Here is a very specific example of a PSC attorney using their position and influence to benefit their own personal claims:

Lionel Sutton - 17 - Joe Rice access from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Interesting that Rice would say, "I'm putting on my private attorney hat now, not my PSC hat."  The point is that the only reason he had access to the Claims Office employees and even a top level Pricewaterhousecoopers (PWC) accountant is because he was a PSC member.  Juneau would not have sent the three of them to just any plaintiff attorney's office to discuss and even negotiate the nature of how their claims were going to be processed.

These next two bytes, Sutton discusses how he, Reitano and Andry Lerner have been denied any reasonable level of due process in order to defend themselves against Freeh's charges:

Lionel Sutton - 13 - Not allowed due process.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Here, Lionel elaborates a little further on why Barbier is so determined to bury the issue and deny them discovery:

Lionel Sutton - 12 - Why Barbier is ignoring and blocking.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

How could both the Judge and Freeh simply ignore the issues that have been brought up already on this blog and by Lionel Sutton?  Let's run down the biggest:
  • Patrick Juneau expedited a claim for a friend. 
  • The PSC expedited, at minimum, 409 claims, many of them their own.  One PSC member, Calvin Fayard, may have expedited his cousin and business partner's claim.
  •  A PSC firm filed fraudulent seafood claims.
  •  Members of the Appeals Panel, themselves, had claims with the DHECC.
  • Some PSC members had direct access and influence to accountants that were processing their personal claims.
How can Louis Freeh, and the Judge for that matter, not address any of these issues?

Louis Freeh is addressing other issues, though.  He is still going after Andry Lerner claims.  It appears Freeh has a vendetta against these guys as well as Christine Mancuso who contradicted his "interpretation" of her investigation interview regarding Reitano's alleged attempt to negotiate the Thonn claim.

In fact, I'm beginning to question the impetus for bringing Freeh on board to begin with as well as his laser-like focus on the Andry Lerner firm.  Does Andry Lerner have any enemies in positions of power on this settlement?  Who introduced Freeh into the fray to begin with?

Lionel stated that if he and Reitano were allowed to conduct discovery, they would uncover much worse issues with Pat Juneau and the PSC than anything of which Freeh has accused them.  It would appear Judge Barbier is doing his best to make sure those issues don't surface.

Is that justice?  Or is it the same old song and dance this state is famous for?  We know our politicians are corrupt but when our judiciary falls into step with them, who do you turn to?

12 comments:

Kevin said...


Lionel and Jason:

That is important and compelling information. Kudos. I thought sure BP was going to take part in Pat Juneau's deposition in Christine Reitano's suit when that door opened in the CDC. It was really disappointing to see them remove that case. Due process issues are a big concern for several people.

Lionel: did Joe Rice or Calvin Fayard ever talk to you about claims for the Bollinger shipbuilding entities? I remember something from the Complaints filed by several Bollinger entities saying they had filed claims with the DHECC, but they expected BP to oppose their status as class members and/or the Claims Administrator at the DHECC had done or said something that indicated the Bollinger claims might be excluded.

Somewhat related to your information about appeals panelists, I recently learned that at least 1 law firm that contributed to and was reimbursed from common benefits assessments also has a senior partner on the appeals panel.

I really hope somebody get to do some meaningful discovery soon.

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

Hang on Kevin, I'm going to send you the full unedited byte per email.

Sutton said...

Kevin
To get the answer to your question about Bollinger, read the brief that I filed in response to the Freeh report.

Kevin said...


Jason: Thank you for the video. Very revealing.

Sutton: Thank you; I'm going to do that. But, the information in the video Jason sent me pretty well answers my question.

One more question - with Boysie Bollinger being such a close, personal friend of Fayard, did Fayard participate in any discussions on these claims or did he let Joe Rice do all the leg work?

Clay said...

Only BP employee convicted thus far wins a new trial
http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/home/9443214-172/federal-judge-grants-former-bp

Kurt Mix.

Clay said...

Only BP employee convicted thus far wins a new trial
http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/home/9443214-172/federal-judge-grants-former-bp

Kurt Mix.

Kevin said...


Sutton:

Judging from the 4/19/13 Complaint for Damages by the numerous Bollinger entities, those would be sizeable claims. Something obvious must have been wrong because that would have been a "large claim" to expedite if there ever was one.

Do you remember if the Bollinger claims were given the FI/FO treatment by the vendors?

Was it Joe Rice, Calvin Fayard or both having the discussions with Pat Juneau or the vendors about Bollinger?

It's not clear to me from the video above, but was Bollinger the entity being discussed in the meeting at Joe Rice's office?




Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

It's not clear from the video above, or the one you watched that no one else did?

Kevin said...

Jason:

Re: Bollinger - yes, it's very clear now.

Your story asks:

"Does Andry Lerner have any enemies in positions of power on this settlement? Who introduced Freeh into the fray to begin with?"

Do you mean somebody on the PSC has an axe to grind with the Andry lawyers?!? Who do you think it is?

Don't you think Freeh is just doing a thorough review of all the Andry claims because the AndryLerner/Sutton "problem" is the issue he came across last summer when he was first appointed?

Who was it to introduce Freeh into the fray to begin with?

Dambala - Jason Brad Berry said...

I don't know for sure but I'm posing the question does someone on the PSC have an axe to grind with the Landrys, yes.

I've heard Calvin Fayard was the PSC attorney that introduced Freeh to the Court.

Kevin said...


"I've heard Calvin Fayard was the PSC attorney that introduced Freeh to the Court."

If true, and if Fayard has some influence with Freeh, that would explain to me why Freeh gave Pat Juneau a clean bill of health even after all his expediting and other good ole boy deals Lionel Sutton describes. Juneau and Fayard are thick as they come.

Which brings me back to the Bollinger claims. There's something not quite right about Joe Rice politicking Sutton and the accountant on behalf of the Bollinger entities. Boysie Bollinger is a close, personal friend of Calvin Fayard. Why wouldn't Fayard do the deal for Bollinger with Pat? Did Pat tell Fayard the claims were problematic? Did Fayard tell Rice the same thing? Did Juneau allow Rice the opportunity to try to hard sell Sutton and the accountant on those claims?

BP doesn't know what I and several others know about Fayard and Juneau. If they did, they would not have agreed to accept Juneau as a special master in any aspect of this case.

I'm still puzzled about the hiring and departure of Danny Clavier? What did he do while at the CAO? Did he handle any claims that were certified by his former employer, Bourgeois Bennett? Why did he jump ship when the Freeh report hit the fan?

Did Fayard have Danny Clavier working for him while the accounting formulas and details of the settlement were being worked out?




Kevin said...


I need to correct something in my previous comment:

After re-reviewing the videos and information, Sutton never met with Joe Rice regarding the Bollinger claims. He and the accountant and Mike Juneau met with Rice about some other client of Rice.