Here it is.
But don't waste 30 minutes out of your Friday night reading it....trust me it's not worth the time.
The unnamed PSC firm continues to remain unnamed and the rest of it is yawn inspiring. I think somebody needs to pay me 3 million dollars a month to do this job...my posts are much more revealing and I can add and subtract at least to a 12th grade level.
I'm working for the next 42 hours for about .003% of his monthly pull so I don't have a lot of time right now to comment on it and I've only browsed it. I'll get back to you over the weekend.
UPDATE: In the meantime it looks like David Hammer and WWLTV have picked up the scent on this story...that makes me happy:
More alleged misconduct in BP oil spill settlement program
I want to draw your attention to the comments made by Blaine "Much Ado About Nothing" LeCesne:
Now don't get me wrong, I think LeCesne is as full of shite as a Christmas goose when it comes to his role as an apologist for the PSC attorneys that pull his strings....most notably Fayard (not Stuart Smith as BP claimed)....but I completely agree with him on this issue of Freeh having the capacity to absolve himself of any conflict of interest and there's a good reason why.
I was going to wait to write about this in another post but since Hammer brought it up I want to air it out now.
Freeh cleared himself of any conflict of interest with Williams & Connolly business in this letter:
Williams & Connoly Freeh conflict letter to Barbier
Here's the issue...if Kirkland and Ellis (BP's attorneys) or even BP themselves are referring business to The Freeh Group and/or Pepper Hamilton (Freeh has financial interest in both companies) then a quid pro quo scenario could be present in respect to what Freeh is doing in the claims office.
Remember, the whole reason Feinberg's GCCF was shut down and the DHECC was opened to supplant it was because Judge Barbier ruled that Feinberg was not an unbiased party after it was discovered he was being paid on a commission basis by BP, among other issues.
Now we have a guy in Freeh who was hired to investigate fraud that has systematically picked off the top five people in the claims office while sliding in over 40 of his own employees to do...what? Nobody's sure.
One thing we do know is that he's clawing back claims. If he is being rewarded by BP or Kirkland and Ellis through new business referrals there is a clear quid pro quo. I don't understand how in billy hell Judge Barbier could justify collapsing the GCCF and now allow Freeh to take over the claims office under these circumstances. And I especially do not understand how Barbier is allowing Freeh to absolve himself as LeCesne pointed out.
But don't waste 30 minutes out of your Friday night reading it....trust me it's not worth the time.
The unnamed PSC firm continues to remain unnamed and the rest of it is yawn inspiring. I think somebody needs to pay me 3 million dollars a month to do this job...my posts are much more revealing and I can add and subtract at least to a 12th grade level.
I'm working for the next 42 hours for about .003% of his monthly pull so I don't have a lot of time right now to comment on it and I've only browsed it. I'll get back to you over the weekend.
UPDATE: In the meantime it looks like David Hammer and WWLTV have picked up the scent on this story...that makes me happy:
More alleged misconduct in BP oil spill settlement program
I want to draw your attention to the comments made by Blaine "Much Ado About Nothing" LeCesne:
Freeh acknowledged to Barbier that he has ties to law firms representing BP, including Kirkland and Ellis and Williams & Connolly. He also disclosed that his former law partner, Stanley Sporkin, was serving as BP America's ombudsman.
But in each case, Freeh has definitively stated there was no conflict of interest. LeCesne said it shouldn't be Freeh's place to conclude that.
"I think there's at least a specter of a potential conflict and I hope something is done rather than to simply accept Mr. Freeh's unilateral conclusion, without explanation, that he's not biased," LeCesne said.
Now don't get me wrong, I think LeCesne is as full of shite as a Christmas goose when it comes to his role as an apologist for the PSC attorneys that pull his strings....most notably Fayard (not Stuart Smith as BP claimed)....but I completely agree with him on this issue of Freeh having the capacity to absolve himself of any conflict of interest and there's a good reason why.
I was going to wait to write about this in another post but since Hammer brought it up I want to air it out now.
Freeh cleared himself of any conflict of interest with Williams & Connolly business in this letter:
Williams & Connoly Freeh conflict letter to Barbier
Here's the issue...if Kirkland and Ellis (BP's attorneys) or even BP themselves are referring business to The Freeh Group and/or Pepper Hamilton (Freeh has financial interest in both companies) then a quid pro quo scenario could be present in respect to what Freeh is doing in the claims office.
Remember, the whole reason Feinberg's GCCF was shut down and the DHECC was opened to supplant it was because Judge Barbier ruled that Feinberg was not an unbiased party after it was discovered he was being paid on a commission basis by BP, among other issues.
Now we have a guy in Freeh who was hired to investigate fraud that has systematically picked off the top five people in the claims office while sliding in over 40 of his own employees to do...what? Nobody's sure.
One thing we do know is that he's clawing back claims. If he is being rewarded by BP or Kirkland and Ellis through new business referrals there is a clear quid pro quo. I don't understand how in billy hell Judge Barbier could justify collapsing the GCCF and now allow Freeh to take over the claims office under these circumstances. And I especially do not understand how Barbier is allowing Freeh to absolve himself as LeCesne pointed out.
More later.
