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 - Are Juneau's days numbered?

So much to talk about with the DHECC...where to begin?

Let's start with this James Varney editorial that came out weekend before last.

A trial lawyer web entangles the BP settlement:  James Varney

This whole editorial appears to be a plant that was given to Varney in order to set up an ensuing effort to remove Pat Juneau from the Claims Office.  I wouldn't mind it that much but Varney seems to have only a half-ass idea of what he's writing about.  Juneau is not a trail attorney, he's a defense attorney.

Also this pargraph:

In addition, the things Freeh did outline - Sutton's failure to disclose a financial interest he and his wife, Christine Reitano (herself a lawyer on Juneau's staff prior to being dismissed), had with a filing claimant and other shenanigans by trial lawyers - served to cast a dubious light on the proceedings thus far.

This has been refuted by both Sutton and Reitano...they both claim the Thonn claim was disclosed to Juneau.  Varney stated they didn't disclose the claim as fact, not an allegation.

 I'm also curious what Varney means by "other shenanigans by trial lawyers".  What the fuck does that mean?

The sentence implies that Reitano had something to do with "other shenanigans by trial lawyers".  I have read the Freeh report, the Andry filings and Reitano's breach of contract suit and I don't have any idea what he's talking about unless he's referring to the unnamed law firm on Page 60 of the report.

I want to pause make an observation about the TP before I continue.  Why is the first report of this story in the Time-Picayune coming from an editorialist?  This column is an obvious plant that wreaks of an agenda.

I have pretty good idea who Varney got the information from and why it was published ahead of the second Freeh report's release but why aren't these issues actually being "reported" by the TP?  They're letting Varney break (incorrectly I might add) one of the biggest stories in the region?  Why isn't an actual reporter being assigned to this story?

The Freeh report should be coming out any day and judging from Varney's proxy-mouthpiece-editorial it's rather apparent it will most likely target Juneau.

Aside from Varney's article, an even bigger indicator that Juneau is in hot water occurred on October 30th when Judge Barbier appointed Court-Designated Neutrals over the Business Economic Loss (BEL) Program.  It's clearly a smack-down by Barbier and I believe a sign of darker days to come for Juneau.  I wouldn't be surprised to see Juneau's resignation tendered any day now.

Speaking of resignations, I think it would also be prudent to look at the resignation of Appeals Coordinator and son of Federal Judge Stanwood Duval, Jr., David Duval, that occurred on October 7, 2013 and was first reported here on AZ.  Instead of running down all of the possibilities as to why Duval resigned, I'll refer you to the thread of questions posed by AZ commenter, Kevin, in this Comment Bump.  But mainly, I want to point out a comment in that comment bump:

Kevin said....
More questions Mr. Andry might have for Mr. Duval: 

Is an entity know as "Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc." named as a plaintiff in the class action case that produced the class action settlement 

Is Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc. a "Class Representative" for the class action settlement being administered by the DHECC and CAO? 

Is any member of your family's law practice a director of Lake Eugenie Land & Development, Inc.?

Big frikkin' deal here, folks...believe me when I tell you...this is a big deal.  I am hoping we will find out more when Freeh releases the next report.

Here's another big deal from a Kevin comment:

Kevin said... 

On the subject of CPA's in the CAO, can any AZ reader shed some light on Danny Clavier's activities at the CAO? 

He was the former head of the Class Action Consulting section of Bourgeois Bennet ( where David Duval's aunt is a principal) and came out of "retirement" for a position with the CAO.  

I think we're about to find out more on this issue by the end of the week as well.

I believe the heads of Juneau, Duval and Clavier will most likely roll as a consequence of the next Freeh report.  Well, Duval's already has if he was indeed forced to resign as a result of the Freeh investigation.

But what I'm most curious about is if Freeh will finally name the mysterious law firm on page 60 of his original report that "may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  As I pointed out in the post linked above, the most likely suspect as to who this law firm is would be one of the Plaintiff Steering Committee firms.  I draw this conclusion because a PSC firm would have the most intimate knowledge of the claims process, how the CAO works and it also goes a long way to explaining why Freeh (and possibly Barbier) protected the firm's identity in the first report.

It begs the question, "How could a PSC firm have manipulated the claims process to get such massive overpayments?"  I suspect they could accomplish this by manipulating their knowledge of how the parameters were set for individual classifications and payouts.  After all, they are the ones that set the parameters and classifications to begin with.

I'm going to draw out a hypothetical scenario in a subsequent post on how the process may have been manipulated with claims filed by shrimpers but for now I want to stay focused on Barbier and the validity and implications of the Freeh investigation.

On November 7, Both BP and Patrick Juneau filed motions in federal court to have Christine Reitano's breech of contract lawsuit against the DHECC and BP removed from the state court.  The case was automatically assigned to Barbier and filed under MDL (multi-district litigation) status.  I thought the protocol for both filings should have been randomly assigned to judges but I called the Clerk of Court's office and they told me that they are under a mandate from the national MDL judicial panel to assign anything having to do with BP to Barbier.

This is a big issue because it will most likely bury the lawsuit for years and put a lid on any discovery that may have occurred in the case.

Barbier has also denied discovery to the three parties Freeh accused in his first report, Reitano, Sutton and the Andry Lerner law firm.  This has created a scenario where the court appointed special investigator has levied allegations against these three parties, even suggesting that the state and/or federal bar as well as the Dept. of Justice investigate the matter, however, the accused have no access to the evidence Freeh based the allegations on.  They have no avenue of recourse at all.

Apparently this isn't the first time this scenario has occurred with a Freeh investigation but in the Penn State Sandusky matter the tables were turned on Freeh:

Louis Freeh Fires Back at Graham Spanier for Lawsuit

“Spanier has not articulated — and cannot articulate — a single reason why he will be prejudiced if he is compelled merely to file a complaint backing his accusation,” the filing continued. “If Spanier does not file a complaint, [Freeh] will remain stuck in the untenable position of having Spanier’s broad accusation clouding their reputations without being able to defend themselves.”

The comment section is worth a 5 to 10 minute glance on that story.

This next Freeh report is going to be revealing not only by what he discloses but more importantly by what he may omit...namely the identity of the page 60 law firm.  It's going to reveal if this investigation is fo' true or if it is simply a PR witch hunt that was designed to offer up a few souls to the BP altar as an attempt at pacification.

I would also note that I requested an interview with David Odom, the CEO of the DHECC but I received no response.  I have some questions I'd like to ask him about his relationship with one of the court appointed vendors.  

Will Barbier do the right thing?

In the last post, I brought up the interesting point that in his report on the DHECC, Louis Freeh suggested an unnamed law firm may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  I questioned the fact that Freeh had no qualms about naming Lionel Sutton, Christine Reitano (Sutton's wife) and the Andry Lerner law firm in his report but for some unknown reason he didn't release the name of the law firm on page 60.

This is a pretty big deal because he's effectively destroyed Sutton and Reitano's reputation by listing them both in the report.  Reitano has denied any wrongdoing and is now suing both Patrick Juneau and BP for defamation.  Why would Freeh name Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner but protect the identity of this firm?

I've been doing a lot of speculating with my legal-eagle readers and friends about why this firm went unnamed.  Here are some of our theories, they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive:

- Freeh is continuing the investigation into the misconduct of the unnamed firm and was not ready to release their name at the time he published the report.

- The claim may be unsubstantiated and found to have been false upon further examination.

- The law firm may, in fact, be a PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee) firm that used their position to manipulate the claims process to their advantage and get the increase in payments.  This may simply be such a huge can of worms that Judge Barbier had Freeh back off the firm in order to preserve the integrity of the Claims Office.

- Freeh may not be as autonomous as he pretends and the law firm had enough stroke with him and/or Judge Barbier to keep themselves out of the frying pan.

- Barbier may have given the law firm the opportunity to pay back the overpayments in order to not be exposed and mar the Claims Office.

Here's what I think...I think it's most likely a combination of the last three theories.  The first question is what law firm would have enough stroke within the DHECC to manipulate the claims to get a 114% overpayment.  I think that it almost has to be, without a doubt, a PSC firm.  I also think that it would almost have to be a local, Louisiana-based firm.  That narrows the possibilities down to what?  About 9 of the 12 original firms?  There's Calvin Fayard, Steve Herman, Jim Roy, Motley Rice, Micheal C. Palmintier, Paul M. Sterbcow, Matthew E. Lundy, Duke Williams,  and Phillip Cossich.  You can check out this post I made for a graphic map of the PSC.

I honestly don't know, 100%, who the firm is but I have about a 90% hunch of who it might be.  If I'm right it would also explain why local media outlets, especially the Times-Picayune, are virtually ignoring this story and the past two legal filings by Andry Lerner and Reitano.  In fact, they aren't even reporting on the matter, themselves, they're just reposting AP reports.  Nola.com posted the Reitano AP report, left it up for about two hours and immediately pushed it to archives.  Why is the AP the only entity reporting what may be the biggest story in the city at the moment?  Maybe The Advocate and Nola.com are working on it but I suspect the story is purposely being muted because of who the unnamed firm may be.

NOTE:  The AP story said Reitano's suit was a defamation suit...it's not.  Her suit is actually for breach of contract.  

For the moment, let's assume Freeh's unnamed firm is a PSC firm.

Please note that I have continually addressed issues that have been reported to me with some of the PSC firms, particularly those who were also placed on the Wisner settlement with BP for the City of New Orleans.  If you haven't seen the issues I have brought up, here are some links you should read now:

American Zombie: The Wisner Fund - Battle for the Bayou - Part 2

American Zombie: Thieves in The Temple

American Zombie: A little help

American Zombie: "Complaints"

American Zombie: Item # 2

American Zombie: Sounds of the Jungle

Aside from the clear collusion between Steve Herman and BP lawyers regarding the Wisner property I laid out in email chains in the first link, Wisner Part 2, I have been researching two overarching claims of wrongdoing by some of the PSC firms:

1.  Some of the PSC law firms used their clout to push their own private claims ahead of other claims being processed in the DHECC.

2.  At least one of the PSC law firms sold the "formula" to the claims process before the DHECC office even opened in order to give an advantage to law firms who wanted to get their claims processed first.

On item number two, I have been very close to getting a source to go on the record about being approached to purchase this "formula" but ultimately they decided not to.  I'm still working on that item though, so don't give up on me just yet.  I have no doubt this allegation is true.

The thing is, if any of these claims are proven against a PSC firm, including the 114% overpayment alleged by Freeh, this could lead to catastrophic legal implications.

The reason this is such a big deal, and the reason I've been pounding the drum about it for so long, is that these PSC lawyers were appointed to represent the claimants in the DHECC and the people of the Gulf who were affected by the BP spill...people who are still suffering from the BP spill.  Many of these people have filed claims and still not been paid.  Some have been waiting a year or more.

As we all know, BP is trying to shut the DHECC down and kill the settlement completely.  If that were to happen, all the folks with claims left queued in the Claims Office are most likely shit outta luck.  If a PSC firm got their clients paid first, and overpaid, they are directly responsible for dissing the claimants who may not get paid.  I'm not even sure what happens at that point.  Could the remaining claimants file a class action malpractice suit against one or more of the PSC firms?  Not sure if that's legally possible but it seems as if it should be.

I suspect there is a massive suppression campaign taking place right now to try and squash this genie back in the bottle.  I hope that doesn't happen.  Not only would that not be fair to the people actually named in the Freeh report, Reitano, Sutton and Andry Lerner, it wouldn't be fair to the hard working people of the Gulf Coast who were devastated by BP's greed and incompetence.

The one person who must know the answers to these questions is Federal Judge Carl Barbier.  Let's hope he does the right thing.  We've seen too many rich, wealthy, fat cats get away with crimes in this city in the past couple years...crimes that have a direct impact on our society.  I hope that pattern doesn't continue here.  

Freeh is challenged again

One week after the Andry Lerner law firm filed a memo in federal court refuting Louis Freeh's accusations of misconduct in respect to the BP settlement, another attorney accused of misconduct, a former high level employee of the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center (DHECC), has filed suit for breach of contract against BP, Orleans Parish and Patrick Juneau, the DHECC administrator.

Christine Reitano is the wife of Lionel Sutton, another lawyer who was also working for the DHECC.  Both Reitano and Sutton were called out in Louis Freeh's report for misconduct and potential illicit activity along with the Andry Lerner law firm.  Sutton resigned from the DHECC in the wake of the allegations, Reitano did not resign but was then fired by Juneau.

 Reitano was accused by Freeh of accepting a commission for a referral on a claim, the "Thonn Claim", that she referred to the Andry Lerner law firm, after she had accepted a position to work in the Claims Center for Patrick Juneau.

In this filing, Reitano states that she never received any commission for the referral and the evidence on which Freeh based his allegation, a deposition by Andry Lerner attorney, Christina Mancuso, was misinterpreted by Freeh.

Reitano claims that she disclosed her involvement with the claimant, Thonn, before she accepted the position with the DHECC and that Juneau was made aware of the existing relationship.  When Reitano took the job at the Claims Center, the Thonn claim was made known to Juneau but did not appear to be an issue.

The Freeh report also notes that the Thonn claim was examined internally by the DHECC in January of 2013, well before Freeh was brought on board to conduct his investigation.  Apparently, the matter was not acted upon at that time.

Freeh also claimed that Reitano used her position in the office to try and procure a job for her husband, Lionel Sutton, with the Garden City Group, a court vendor of the DHECC.  Reitano maintains that the matter was discussed but was never acted upon after it was vetted with the Claims Center and deemed unethical.  Reitano states that Juneau was made aware of this issue as well.

Here is the petition.  I also have the exhibits but I need to re-compress them before I upload them.

Read through the petition....I will comment later.  This is an interesting turn of events that may have opened up a can of worms in that she has filed against BP, not just Juneau.  If this goes into discovery and she is deposed on record....there could be some sphincterific panic among some of the members of the DHECC office and the PSC (Plaintiff Steering Committee) crew.

Remember that Freeh suggested potential misconduct by another law firm on page 60 of his report. He states that this firm may have had claims overpaid by up to 114%.  What's interesting is that this law firm's identity was not disclosed in the report but Sutton, Reitano and Andry Lerner were.  Why wasn't this second firm named?

We'll take a closer look in the next post.

DHECC - Comment Bump, October 19, 2013

Kevin has left a new comment on your post "DHECC - Freeh's interests may not be so free": 

Just a few personal thoughts on what kind of questions Mr. Andry might want to ask the witnesses, assuming he is granted access to them:

Did David Duval resign for any reasons connected to the information appearing in the Freeh report?

Is he prevented from assisting anyone in bringing BP claims?

Is he working for the family firm in Houma?

How many BP claims has the family firm brought for others?

Did he work or help or have lunch with anyone on any of those?

Did he have any involvement in any BP claims where the CPA firm Bourgeois Bennett was also involved (his aunt is a principal in that firm)?

Same question for Duval Shearer CPA?

Is David Duval involved with the Crescent City Group?

Who hired Kirk Fisher and why?

Who hired David Odom and why?

Who hired all the other MBAs from the Class of 2012?

Did the MBAs have preferential knowledge of or access to these claims center jobs?

Were there any other applicants for these claims center jobs now held by the MBAs?

Were any other people interviewed for these jobs?

Do the MBAs work for the Crescent City Group?

What kind of work is done by the MBAs and does it take someone with an MBA to do it?

Is Michael Olinde the treasurer of Crescent City Group?

Did Kirk Fisher know Michael Olinde before 2010? 

Did David Odom know Michael Olinde before 2010? Did they graduate from high school together? Before 2010, did they invest any money together?

Last question (for now): What is it y’all say I did wrong, again?

I’m wondering if Pat Juneau is one of the “other persons” to whom Mr. Andry wants access. He does list Pat’s son, Michael.

Wisner Beach - "No further response needed" - October 12th, 2013

Last Saturday, October 12th, I got up at the break of dawn (a major feat for me) and took a trip down to Wisner Beach at Port Fourchon to meet with one of the landowners.  We wanted to see if the recent tropical disturbance had left any new oil deposits on the property.  We found numerous oil balls, some bigger than grapefruits, in a specific area of the beach.  As the tide receded we realized there was a huge oil "mat" in that area right below the surface of the water.  It was estimated to be around 30 to 40 feet in diameter but it was hard to tell because it was mostly submerged.

Later in the day a large BP clean-up crew showed up and attempted to extract the oil in that area.

Thibodaux's Daily Comet reported that over a ton of oil has been recovered in the wake of Tropical Storm Karen according to the Coast Guard.  The article is incorrect in that it implies the oil was discovered by BP crews during a standard clean up process but it was actually discovered by Wisner employees monitoring the beach.  This is important because this area, "Zone 4", was taken out of response by BP after they labeled it "clean" and that it needed "no further response".  Not that this was the Daily Comet reporter's intention but the article implies that BP is continually monitoring this area and that is simply not true.

Here are some of the pix I took.  I actually shot video but I had a camera issue so I'm just showing stills here.

A clump of oil 

 A large weathered "tar ball"

Multiple tar balls clumped together

Tar ball on some seashells

Another tar ball

A "tar ball" washes in as I was shooting

Clean up crew attempting to extract the oil mat

At first we could only see the edge of the mat due to the tide

As the tide receded the size of the mat became clearer

Workers attempting to remove the oil

The workers could could only get to the oil that washed ashore, not the oil still below the surface of the water

It's brazenly clear that there is still a massive amount of oil in the Gulf and particularly along this area of the Louisiana coastline.  Even though BP sunk most of the oil after the spill by using dispersant, the oil didn't magically disappear as they would have us believe.  If this much of it, a ton, is coming in after a minor tropical disturbance you can only imagine what is still in the Gulf itself and how long this problem is going to last.  What I can't imagine is what all that oil is doing to the ecosystem of the Gulf.

BP has already designated this area as needing "no further response" and declared cleanup efforts in Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida "complete" according to the Daily Comet article.

Meanwhile, I've got some explosive news regarding the DHECC I'm going to share with you by week's end....stay tuned.

A DHECC road map

As promised, I've completed another VO to explain what I've learned about how claims are processed by the Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center and who the companies are processing them.

This is not meant to be an "official" explanation, it is my perspective of the process after having looked into it over the past 5 to 6 months.  I may have gotten some things wrong and if I did I will publish the corrections in this post directly below the video.  The video is locked into this site so you can't watch it without coming here, therefore the corrections should always accompany the VO.  Please note the Creative Commons license on this website and on the video.

I, and people helping me, have put a lot of time and effort into this, if you are so inclined you can donate via the PayPal logo over there >>>>>>>.



Americcan Zombie - The DHECC claims process from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Corrections:

1. Right out of the gate I got the multiplier issue wrong.  I said if you had $10 in losses you would receive $25 with a 2.5x multiplier.  That's not how it works...you would actually net $35.  The formula would be the amount lost plus the 2.5 x the amount lost.  So it would be 10 + 25 = 35.

Graphics and Links:

Deepwater Horizon Economic Claims Center
U.S. Census Bureau 
Postlethwaite and Netterville
Brown and Greer
Pricewaterhouse Coopers
The Garden City Group

The Wisner Trust - Battle for the Bayou - A Battered Beach

Last Monday morning, Feb 18th, I hopped in the car with my camera before the sun rose and headed down to Port Fourchon, LA.  I was lucky enough to have taken a media tour of the Wisner property with other journalists.  The tour was hosted by the Wisner field inspector, Forrest Travica III.

Forrest grew up in the Fourchon area and has roamed the Wisner land since he was a child.  He knows the property inside and out...he's seen its natural erosion, the damage caused by hurricanes, and the constant bombardment of oil mats caused by the BP Macondo oil spill in 2010.  If there is a figurative doctor that could take the temperature and diagnose the health of the beach and marsh that comprise the Wisner property, it's Dr. Forrest.

In this video, he explains the importance of the Wisner property in respect to Port Fourchon and the wildlife that call it home.

Forrest Travica on Loop and Beach Integrity from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

Contrary to popular belief, oil from the BP Macondo spill is still bombarding the coastal regions of the Gulf of Mexico from Louisiana through Alabama and even into the panhandle of Florida.  Port Fourchon and the Wisner property is on the frontline of this assault.  The expanse of the beach area that comprises Fourchon is getting upwards of 600 to 800 pounds of oil washing up daily pending wind and ocean conditions.

In the 2nd video, clean up workers discuss the oil they pick up daily per zones designated by BP.  Forrest goes on to discuss what he thinks is really happening with the continued influx of oil mats onto the property.

The Wisner Trust - Battle for the Bayou - Forrest Travica oil that is continually hitting the Wisner property from the BP Spill from Jason Berry on Vimeo.

The ugly truth is that this spill is going to be affecting the Gulf South for a very long time and the Louisiana shoreline will suffer the most.

BP would like you to believe that they solved the problem by using dispersant (Corexit).  In reality, it simply sunk the problem from public view.  The weathered oil is now with us for decades, if not longer.

On a personal note (my opinion and observation) I was somewhat surprised that I was even able to speak with the clean up workers and shoot the oil itself.  Having followed the spill from the beginning, this kind of access was never allowed in the early stages of the spill.  I guess BP isn't so worried about the PR repercussions now that they're reaching a settlement.

Also...donations are appreciated.  Shooting video ain't cheap.  Ashe'