Wednesday, June 11, 2014

DHECC - of all the claims in the BP settlement world....

Yesterday, Louis Freeh filed this motion to claw back a seafood claim against a guy named Jarrod A. Burrle.

Burrle just happens to be an Andry Lerner client.  It appears Freeh only has eyes for Andry Lerner.

It's amazing that the guy has over 70 people in the office, making over 3 million a month, yet he can only focus on a single law firm.  Does that seem a little strange?  

I was also told that Burrle is Andry Lerner attorney Christine Mancuso's client.  You remember her?  She provided the witness testimony that Freeh "interpreted" to base his claim that Christine Reitano was attempting to negotiate a larger referral fee for the Thonn claim.  Mancuso later signed an affidavit saying Freeh was mistaken and that she never said that.  

What a coinkydink....the guy has hundreds of thousands of claims to scour and he happens to choose one of Mancuso's?  You think that may be a vendetta?     


Ashton O'Dwyer said...

Nothing in Freeh's Memorandum in Support of his Motion to "claw back" monies fraudulently paid to and received by Mr. Burrle even remotely suggests a "vendetta" against The Lerner Law Firm or any of its lawyers. A fairly large number of people should be prosecuted and jailed if what Freeh has alleged about the Burrle claim is true. I would like to focus to be on the lawyer(s) at Lerner who assisted Burrle in presenting his claim, the individuals who assisted Burrle in "documenting" his alleged losses (involving at least one fraudulent Federal Income Tax Return, which Burrle probably would have been too ignorant to prepare himself), the persons with the "pre-settlement investment firm" which advanced $24,000 to Burrle on his claim, which they had to have "vetted" before loaning him $24,000 as an advance, and lastly the individuals within the DHECC who reviewed the Burrle claim and decided to pay Mr. Burrle $50,015.87 on the basis of an obviously fraudulent claim presentation. My personal belief is that Freeh decided to focus on the Burrle claim because if the DHECC paid him over $50,00, then "what else" could be going on within the DHECC that people don't know about. Mr. Burrle and his "enablers" just happen to be "convenient low-hanging fruit". Ashton O'Dwyer.

Jason Brad Berry said...

I'm not suggesting the Burrle claim isn't fraudulent, I'm asking why Freeh is only focused on Andry Lerner.

I think your theory is wrong...I don't think Freeh has any intent of looking further into the Office itself. His only goal now is to justify his 3 million/month contract to BP. He has no interest in rooting out the corruption internally, that could affect the settlement as whole and hence his own contract.

While we're looking at fraudulent seafood claims, why isn't he looking at the PSC issue? If one of those claims is the one I think it is, it's actually a class rep claim and it's pretty easy to investigate.

Ashton, I know you don't like the Andrys but you also don't like specific members of the PSC. Also, they don't like each other. I don't think you understand what I mean by "vendetta".

Anonymous said...

Ashton, How can you of all people automatically conclude that the Burrle claim is fraud when the only "evidence" presented is hearsay and neither Burlle or his attorneys will be given a reasonable opportunity to present a defense.
For years I have been reading your comments on this blog and others. Rarely, if at all, have I seen you treat others that have accused the way you want to be treated.

Anonymous said...

Been accused