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:  

Lionel Sutton - 14 - Page 60 - 1.mov from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

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

DHECC : Almost a smoking gun...perhaps a mushroom cloud

Last night I spent a lot of time going through the recent filings by Christine Reitano, Lionel Sutton and the Andry Law Firm, I wanted to make sure I read between the lines, detected any nuance, etc.

There is so much to point out that I'm going to break it up over multiple posts but I want to start with what I think is a bomb that Sutton dropped on page six of his filing:

Sutton Dec. 18 filing

....read this:

Perhaps more significant, while discussing the Thonn claim, Freeh noted that he discovered a second law firm that submitted at least four claims with tax returns more favorable than trip tickets.  (The very same issue that he uses with regard to the Thonn claim to accuss Sutton, Andry and Lerner of corruption and the recommendation that each be prevented from representing claimants).  In those four claims, Freeh found that the tax returns resulted in pay outs of as much as 114% greater.  Unbelievably, Freeh did not identify the second law firm or the claimants, made no allegations of corrruption and made no recommendation that the second law firm be prevented from representing claimants.  If the second law firm improperly manipulated data to the benefit of their private clients and to the detriment of their class clients, the possibility that the law firm is a member of the Plaintiff's Steering Committee, mandates disclosure, not cover up.

Emphasis theirs

Whoop....there it is!  Whoop...there it is!

It's pretty clear Sutton knows who the page 60 firm is and he's all but telling us as much in this filing. I think he also rightfully points out that what he's being accused of is pale in comparison to what the page 60 firm may have done, especially if it's a PSC firm.

Sutton even goes so far as to use the term "cover up" to point out that Freeh had no qualms naming himself, Reitano and the Andry Firm as well as the claim, Thonn, in his accusations of misconduct. But for some reason Freeh did not identify the page 60 firm or the claims this firm allegedly manipulated.

This is huge....huge....I've said from the beginning that if a PSC firm had manipulated the claims process in any way.... selling access to the "formula", expediting their personal claims ahead of the other class claimants, or manipulating the actual claims to game the system they themselves created...Humpty Dumpty is going to come crashing down and all the King's men won't be able to put him back together again.

According to Sutton's filing it appears this is exactly what happened.

I've been digging a lot on this issue and I think I have pretty good idea of what the fraudulent "manipulation" of the claims process by the unnamed firm may have been.  It involves seafood claims, particularly shrimp, and Sutton even mentions this in the paragraph above.

It involves the process by which shrimper's assessed their losses.  There are basically two ways to assess this, tax returns and "trip tickets".  The trip tickets are basically a written record of how many pounds of shrimp a fisherman brings in to market on each fishing expedition.

According to the formula for the settlement, there are "multipliers" assigned to each settlement amount pending the pounds in shrimp each shrimper produced in the years previous to the spill.  So let's say there is a 1.5 multiplier on 49,999 lbs. of shrimp produced in a year but for 50,000 lbs. of shrimp produced in a year you get a 2.5 multiplier.  Obviously, the difference in the payout is substantial.

Now imagine a husband and wife shrimp team, or even partners in a shrimp boat enterprise, using multiple boats to fish.  Let's say the husband produced 45,000 lbs. in 2009 and the wife produced 35,000 lbs.  If the law firm shifts 5000 lbs. in shrimp tickets to the husband, the husband gets bumped up to the 2.5 multiplier while the wife still gets her 1.5 multiplier.

The numbers I'm using above are hypothetical and I'm still not sure exactly how the multipliers work in respect to pounds of shrimp.  There is also another qualifier...boat size:



Still, you can see how the system is set up to be gamed if you know the ins and outs.

Another major issue to consider is that the seafood claims are a capped fund so after all the claims are paid out, any excess funds are paid out pro rata.  That means if some of the claimants were gaming the system, per their law firms, and getting more than they deserved they were doing so at the expense of the other fisherman in the settlement.  It's not like it was a harmless scam that only affected BP's coffers.

That issue takes on even more gravitas if the law firm manipulating the claims is a PSC firm because not only did the Plantiff Steering Committee create the claims process from the beginning, they have a fiduciary duty to represent all of the claimants in the MDL (multi-district litigation) case, not just their private claimants.  Therefore, they have robbed their MDL-assigned clients in order to pay their favored, private clients, hence themselves, more money.

Aside from criminal charges and potential disbarment, both BP and the class claimants may have a massive malpractice suit against this PSC firm...if indeed it is a PSC firm that submitted the fraudulent claims.

Why would Freeh not name this firm?  Is Barbier, perhaps, protecting the firm?

What's interesting is that, with this week's legal filings, there seems to be a sudden change in the court's stonewalling towards those accused in the Freeh report.  Magistrate judge Shushan released these responses to this week's filings today:

Order re Andry Motion to Compel  

Paw Affidavit

It appears the court is now willing to provide the accused with at least some of the evidence acquired by Freeh that led to the accusations in the report.  What's even more intriguing to me is the testimony and evidence the court doesn't seem to want to reveal...I'll get to that in the next post.

The beginning of the end?

Appeals court rules for BP - allows claims process to be revisited

Methinks this ends only one way....not the good way.